Proposed law to make owners of gun free zones liable

[spencer60]

They actually need to go a step farther and mandate armed security in these environments.

Shifting liability is nice, and might counter any concern by businesses that that there's some liability involved if they don't post 'no guns' signs, but it really doesn't do anything for actual crime and safety.

If (for example) 5% of the population has a carry license, then they should provide armed security equivalent to 5% of the occupancy of the store. That on-going cost would definitely have a lot more impact on a businesses decision to be a gun free zone.

Even so, I'd like to see this pass, but I think it's been proposed before and never made it through.

 

[rockyfatcat]

So criminals obey signs? If they followed societies norms they wouldn’t be criminals

 

[BH-ATL]

These seems to be a political stunt since most stores are already liable for your safety and one could sue if involved in a shooting. There is BP downtown that is being sued because a party across the street spilled over into its parking lot and a deadly shooting occurred. The suit said the BP didn't have enough security.

 

[jaxyaks]

Since the proposed law includes property damage, all those car break-ins will cost them a lot more than...oh we are sorry...I bet you see signs come down by the ton once the lawsuits start to fly.

 

[dcline9163]

So criminals obey signs? If they followed societies norms they wouldn’t be criminals

Sad but so, that's why I say "accountability" in other words, I count on my ability to protect myself.

 

[palmettomoon]

If you do not have a metal detector or guard wanding at the door you are not serious about your "no weapons" policy and you can go suck a bag of Richards.

 

[BEREZKA]

I think the hidden danger is making those often impossible to see signs carry the force of law

 

[Bear44]

I don't see how this will stand up to legal challenges unless it includes government property, too. Applying this to schools would solve the school shooting issue pretty damn quick because the school would have to actually take responsibility for the security of anyone on the property, including the students.

Perhaps it's the beginning of incremental change. Get this bill passed into law and then sue to expand it to include government property. I'd back that.

 

[Bear44]

I think the hidden danger is making those often impossible to see signs carry the force of law

Possible, but the way it's presented now does not do that. It only makes the property owner civilly responsible for the safety of their "guests". The only law applied to the person carrying the weapon is criminal trespass and that doesn't apply unless they are asked to leave and refuse. That's the way it is now.

 

[wolfmanrogers]

The only addition, for me, would be the firearm has to be concealed.
All we need is some rube loaded up with dollar store holstered Glicks and an AR slung over his shoulder to sour the whole reason for the law. JMHO.

Yeah, freedom is scary. Can't have people making choices for themselves.