This is a discussion on Interesting Concept within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Armed and Safe: Liability for 'gun-free zones' coming to Arizona?...
Works for me!
Lex et Libertas — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!
"Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell
Imagine the insurance companies lobbiest's actually doing something 'for' guns...that would be great.
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Who is John Galt?
That needs to start getting pushed naionwide. If we had a law like that, I bet a lot of gun free zone signs would start to disappear.
Sounds good, lets move on it. What can we do to push it
I like it. If a business is going to take away your right to defend yourself, then they need to be made responsible AND liable for the safety of their employees and customers.
It's encouraging to see that at least someone is trying to do something about the insanity of "Gun Free Zones".
ALWAYS carry! - NEVER tell!
"A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior
judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his
I sort of figured something like this would be forthcoming out of the mall tragedies. I think it's only fair for property owners to make a decision as to if they want to be liable in those instances. These sort of laws should be up for legislation everywhere. I'd also like to see that convey to employee rights on company properties (such as parking lots), where firearms are technically not allowed or posted as such. Accountability is what it's all about. Arizona sure seems to be at the forefront of alot of CCW legislation. I hope it's catching.
This is a great idea, but making it illegal for a business to restrict your 2nd amendment rights would be even better. Perhaps if this catches on we can use it as a stepping stone to getting rid of "defenseless zones" all together.
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
NRA Life Member
Good idea...isn't the $$$$$$$$$$ (or the potential loss of some of it) that gets their attention EVERY time?
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
The only aspect I think makes this worthwhile is not that the businesses were liable, but that it would make them back down from being restrictive.
So if we make businesses liable for the actions of 3rd parties, such as robbers, spree killers, etc., how long will it be before somebody demands CCW folks be required by law to carry mandatory liability insurance. I can see that if the insurance companies get pushed out of one realm, they will definitely encroach in another.
D'uh. That is what for-profit business is all about - money. It is the lifeblood of what keeps the business alive.isn't the $$$$$$$$$$ (or the potential loss of some of it) that gets their attention EVERY time?
Personally, I don't see how a person or business can be made to be responsible for the actions of a 3rd party not of their ward, control, or employment. Why is a business responsible for the actions of a bad guy?
Also, given the premise...
would this law just cover those folks who have permits (in states requiring permits) or anyone of age who could legally carry (in states where no permit is required), and their wards (e.g. children)? So, if you are a teenage customer unaccompanied by parents in a store and you are shot during a robbery, then you aren't covered because you would not otherwise have used a firearm in self-defense because the state doesn't allow you to carry.Under such legislation, any person, business, organization, unit of government, etc. that prohibits firearms can be held liable for harm inflicted on a person who might otherwise have used a firearm in self-defense.
Would you have to prove that you actually have a gun to use, but that it is left at your last location (such as in your car) where you could legally carry without restriction? In other words, if you have a CCW permit, is that enough to get you covered under the law or do you have to have a gun and prove it was specifically not on your person because you were in the restrictive business? If you leave home, say on a trip around the state, without a gun and go into a restrictive business and get shot by a robber, are you covered since you have a permit and own a gun even though you didn't bother to have it on the trip?
It really scares me to think that gun owners consider themselves to be defenseless if they don't have a firearm on their person. I see the concept repeated time and time again on forums such as this, by participants at gun schools, and in speaking with folks at the range. If a gun is your only consideration for defense, and not having it means you are defenseless, there is a definite lack of preparedness on your part.Perhaps if this catches on we can use it as a stepping stone to getting rid of "defenseless zones" all together.
I don't consider myself as well armed without a gun, but certainly not defenseless. Considering yourself to be defenseless is the first administrative step to becoming a victim.
Mandatory Accountability for Anti's sounds good to me.
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George Patton Jr
I hope it happens,but the flood gates would open up if they did post and got robbed! If that became law,there would a box to check on your insurance app. Will you post or no?
GUN CONTROL= I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THE GUN
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.