[Ruger Collector]

I'm writing to the legislature today in support of this type of legislation. Not only would it help reduce "unarmed victim" policies at shopping centers and churches, it would make employers think twice before infringing on employee personal defense rights!

From an Alan Korwin email:

In the wake of recent public shootings, at least one state will again introduce the bill that says if you create a so-called “gun-free zone” you are liable for any harm it causes. http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act of 2008 doesn’t prevent public places from posting signs that ban the civil right to keep and bear arms. The zones however are known to be dangerous, as recent shootings at Virginia Tech and an Omaha shopping mall have demonstrated. The proposed law only addresses the negligent nature of such zones, making those responsible for disarming innocent bystanders liable for damages. It has no direct cost to government.

According to leading experts, “gun-free zones” are fraudulent, because no alternate means of security is provided, and even FBI-certified firearms owners cannot enter. This leaves only the criminal element armed, and free to wreak havoc without a meaningful deterrent.

Concealed-weapon laws enacted in most states were designed to counteract random shootings, but are defeated by the recklessly created zones that are anything but gun free.

As if to demonstrate the bill’s value, a private citizen with a CCW permit in Colorado shot and killed a madman intent on wiping out a congregation at church. The news media, behaving in a now-familiar manner, played down the incident, referring to the woman as a security guard. http://instapundit.com/archives2/012740.php

The Associated Press headline, “Megachurches expand use of security forces,” essentially hid what actually happened. The Uninvited Ombudsman, in a report due shortly, suggests a more descriptive headline of “CCW-Permit Holder Kills Murderer, Saves Lives.”

The bill language and background was mentioned and linked yesterday by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, and has increased interest in the bill, set to be introduced in Arizona in January. It was last introduced in Arizona in 2003, and Georgia also introduced a version of the personal-safety legislation.

You are encouraged to copy the model language at gunlaws.com and ask members of your state legislature to introduce this common-sense, life-saving bill. http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

 

[apollosmith]

Excellent! I think I'll send it to my representatives as well.

But, do you really believe it possible that the legislature would hold the LDS church liable for a shooting caused in it's gun-free environment??? Unless the 'places of worship' code were also repealed (which isn't going to happen), I doubt this will go anywhere.

As if to demonstrate the bill’s value, a private citizen with a CCW permit in Colorado shot and killed a madman intent on wiping out a congregation at church. The news media, behaving in a now-familiar manner, played down the incident, referring to the woman as a security guard.

Interesting. I have to admit that I haven't followed the news on the shooting very closely. It's unfortunate, but typically the immediate, often incomplete news at the onset is a lot more accurate than the crap the media creates in the days after a shooting.

 

[bane]

Good point, Smith, with respect to the Legislature not wanting to implicate the Church in a potential suit.

Maybe someone should draft a group version of this letter, have all of us sign it (annotating each signature with the individual's religious affiliation), then exchange a copy with each of us to submit individually??? Maybe the combined signatures, along with the demonstration that most of us (I'm assuming) are LDS, would help weigh in on those who read it????

 

[Ruger Collector]

There is no law that requires churches to ban weapons. It's the church's decision to ban weapons, thereby assuming responsibility AND liability for safety.

With or without this legislation, if my family were injured in a "prohibited location" where I was prohibited from bringing a tool that could have prevented the injury, they would find themselves on the defensive side of lawsuits in no time.

The legislation isn't implicating anybody. It's just common sense legislation to remind "Joe" that when "Joe" chooses to ban defensive weapons then "Joe" is affecting safety and liable for his actions. It would however, make it much easier for us to hold "Joe" accountable.

 

[GeneticsDave]

As if to demonstrate the bill’s value, a private citizen with a CCW permit in Colorado shot and killed a madman intent on wiping out a congregation at church. The news media, behaving in a now-familiar manner, played down the incident, referring to the woman as a security guard. http://instapundit.com/archives2/012740.php

The Associated Press headline, “Megachurches expand use of security forces,” essentially hid what actually happened. The Uninvited Ombudsman, in a report due shortly, suggests a more descriptive headline of “CCW-Permit Holder Kills Murderer, Saves Lives.”

This is slightly off-topic, but didn't they come to the conclusion that his death was finally due to a self-inflicted gunshot wound? I understand that the 'security guard' lady shot him multiple times (5?), but that her shots weren't 'show-stoppers' so to speak.

I think, with what we know now, it might be better to revise the afore quoted lines to surmise that an armed presence helps to limit crime and bring such shootings to an end quickly. I would be careful not to send anything off to the legislature that could be dismissed based on a simple error like this.

I'm all for organizations and businesses, etc. taking responsibility for their negligent policies. I, as many of you know, have tried to persuade the LDS Church to rethink their policy (not based on LDS doctrine, in fact it is against doctrine in my understanding of the Gospel), but they have refused. I guess that since these organizations are not listening or understanding (I don't know which), we need to change things at a legislative level. I would prefer the legislature pass laws preventing gun-free zones, but perhaps enforcing liability (only after a tragic event), is all our state can swallow at this time. That's a shame.

 

[Paul]

I would put my name on a letter desiring a similar piece of legislation. I think that any company, or organization that elimnates our ability to protect ourselves should be liable for any harm done to us in the EXACT same way that I would be liable if I harmed someone through my actions. To me it is the exact same thing as if I harm someone through my negilgance or actions I would expect to be held accountable and most of the time would. Entities should be liable for harm done as a result of their policies and actions.

-PW

 

[xmirage2kx]

BRAVO BRAVO.

I think this is even better than banning no gun zones in some ways because it will force companies to rethink policies about guns in the workplace. Here there is no law that says I can’t bring a gun to my work, but if I did I would be fired. This would mean that if something did happen to me while at or even to and from work (since I can’t even have a gun in my car in the parking lot) that I could have prevented by carrying my gun at least my family would be well cared for financially.

 

[bane]

I like it better than banning gun free zones as well, because this approach gets around the whole "property Rights" issue (which is a load of crap, IMHO, in most cases except places closed to the general public) -- this way, property owners maintain their "Rights" but must take responsibility for what comes of their Rights... as most here would agree, you can't have Rights without Responsibilities.

 

[Strategic Tactical]

Kind of like bars... if they have soeone who drinks to much and drives off and kills someone, they can be held liable.

 

[Hunter]

I am in favor of something like this. As Chris pointed out this type of liability is not new.

 

[T-Man]

Kind of like bars... if they have soeone who drinks to much and drives off and kills someone, they can be held liable.

If a business, or even a private residence, has a maintenance issue (for example, a broken step) and a customer or guest on that property is injured as a result of the owner's negligence, the property owner can be held liable. It makes perfect sense that property owners be held liable for not allowing guests to provide for their own safety and security. Signs are obviously not a deterrent to criminals, perhaps the idea that they can be sued would deter businesses from putting up "unarmed victims inside" signs.

"Unarmed victims inside." I'm not an artist, but those words would look pretty cool in a parody Intel-style logo. Print up a bunch of stickers and encourage people not to vandalize stores with the "no guns" rule.

 

[Cinhil]

This is already a possibility. I discussed this same issue with the AG, Mark Shurtleff. His opinion was that if a business, state school, court house or church were to deny anyone their right to self defense, that they could be sued for damages should an individual be harmed while at, traveling to, or traveling from said establishment. This would be possible because they denied the individual a God-granted, protected civil & constitutional right of self defense.

If you doubt my word on this, as you may, I received this straight from Mark several years ago when I presented the same/similar circumstances to him.

So, though we already have the right and ability to sue (or our families on our behalf if we are dead) the establishment which may deny our inherent rights of self defense, they take responsibility for our safety regardless. I would, though, love to see a law stating this so that these establishments will be put on notice that if they deny us our rights we, or our representatives have the right to sue them for denying us that right.

By doing something akin to this we would force these agencies to think twice, or thrice before arbitrarily denying us our rights, at the same time letting them know, positively, that they are absolutely responsible for our safety from the moment we leave our homes until we return should they deny us this inherent right. If you think about it it would do us a great service and make them really think about their actions as nearly anyone, if they were of a mind, could abuse the law to (as is done with other laws and public services) their advantage and how could the business establishment that denies the right to carry be able to disprove that someone was on their way to their establishment when they met their demise at the hand of a killer?
I am all for it--go for it! :lol:

 

[apollosmith]

I think few businesses just arbitrarily deny us our rights. There's a lawyer behind every sign or policy

Businesses will always be sued as long as people have rights and lawyers have mortgages to pay.

A lawyer for a business simply has to determine if they are more liable with or without the No Guns sign or policy. Somebody can sue them because their little Johnny was shot because they DIDN'T have a "No Guns" sign. Alternatively, somebody can sue them because Jack wasn't allowed to defend himself BECAUSE of the "No Guns" sign. Either way they could be screwed. The lawyers job is to minimize the damage.

To most intelligent people it is silly to believe that the lack of a sign would cause somebody to shoot innocent people, but this is apparently the logic many businesses follow. Conversely, it makes plenty of sense to think that the restriction on ones ability to defend themselves could contribute to their death by someone that will disregard that restriction anyway.

A law that clarifies the liability of businesses (and churches, etc.) when they deny people their right to defense is very much in order. Still, with the hole that Utah dug by allowing churches to pre-empt legal carry, I find it difficult to believe that the legislature will backtrack and hold churches liable for something they gave them direct permission to do in the first place.