Gun Free Zone Liability

Wall · Jun 29, 2016

I've argued that this is the way it should be since we first start passing Carry Laws & the establishment of Gun Free Zones.

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally/

jtischauser · Jun 29, 2016

Common sense gun laws right there!

FortyMikeMike · Jun 30, 2016

Good deal. If you are a business or government and want to avoid liability: allow people to carry.

Incentives!

drmitchgibson · Jun 30, 2016

Interesting concept. What times are these that we look to state laws to shield federally protected rights.

Tech · Jun 30, 2016

Hmmmmmmmm..... I can see both sides. While I think most everyone should be able to carry most anywhere, I also understand property owners rights. Think of a business like your home. If you don't want someone bringing guns into your home, you have that right. Although dumb, the property owner has that right.

jtischauser · Jun 30, 2016

Tech said:
Hmmmmmmmm..... I can see both sides. While I think most everyone should be able to carry most anywhere, I also understand property owners rights. Think of a business like your home. If you don't want someone bringing guns into your home, you have that right. Although dumb, the property owner has that right.

If you're business serves the public you have to do all sorts of things like handicap access, fire protection, etc. they too should have to provide protection from crazy ****ers if they don't let you do it yourself.

MarkCh · Jun 30, 2016

Tech said:
Hmmmmmmmm..... I can see both sides. While I think most everyone should be able to carry most anywhere, I also understand property owners rights. Think of a business like your home. If you don't want someone bringing guns into your home, you have that right. Although dumb, the property owner has that right.

It seems to me that private property rights are left intact. Any private property owner who wants to ban guns on their property still has the right to do so under the new law. What has changed is that they will take on the liability if their banning guns on their property causes someone who would otherwise be carrying for self-defense to get hurt or killed.

Tech · Jun 30, 2016

Although I may like the law, I think it opens the door for other laws that I may not agree with.

On the flip side, you could have a law that says all property owners who do allow guns are liable if a patron uses it. Say a patron pulls his gun to stop a bad guy and kills a bystander. The property owner is now liable for the bystanders death. Which is not a stretch in this world where we try to immediately put blame on someone else, instead of the person who actually committed the crime or accident.

Less laws are better in my opinion.

Wall · Jun 30, 2016

Tech said:
Although I may like the law, I think it opens the door for other laws that I may not agree with.

On the flip side, you could have a law that says all property owners who do allow guns are liable if a patron uses it. Say a patron pulls his gun to stop a bad guy and kills a bystander. The property owner is now liable for the bystanders death. Which is not a stretch in this world where we try to immediately put blame on someone else, instead of the person who actually committed the crime or accident.

Less laws are better in my opinion.

How could the property owner be liable for complying with what the law allows?
With the inverse circumstance, the law allows me to carry a weapon for defense but the property owner is overruling what the law allows.