A new approach to "Gun Free Zones"

I’ve been considering this for a long time so bear with me and think before replying.

I think we should start a nationwide grassroots effort from the ground up to hold each state civilly liable and wholly responsible for our safety in all designated “Gun Free Zones”.

In dong so require the state to furnish armed security at all venues they deem off limits to lawful carry, and hold them liable to both real and punitive damages for failing to ensure our safety in those venues should an incident occur.

Just like the federal gov’t the states generally protect themselves from liability in the event the enforcement of existing law ends up causing harm. Take that protection away from them by eliminating qualified immunity for all levels of gov’t in gun free zones.



Curious why stop with state government, what about private property as well?

I’ll have to give this some more thought. I’ve long held that if you’re going to limit my constitutional rights, than you should be held liable and accountable for any damages I may incur.


Gotta start somewhere and it’s the states that pass the laws.

Personally I would not favor the same on private property, I’m a really big fan of property rights.

Unless the gov’t is compelling you to be on that property we all have a choice as to whether or not we enter.


I agree with this. I think certain types of private property should be included. In Michigan a lot of Hospitals are going “privately owned and operated” in order to bypass existing laws allowing CPL holders to open carry within, this is just one example. But I think anywhere requiring you to disarm should be required to be responsible for your security. Private property can already force you to leave for whatever reason they want.


Not quite. Hospitals are heavily regulated and funded by state and federal govt’s and as places of public accommodation are very limited in when they can deny you access or have you removed from the property.

Hospitals therefore are a quasi gov’t entity even if privately owned so that’s an interesting situation.

Unfortunately neither under federal or state laws are your 2nd Amendment Rights protected under PA laws.

Personally I’m vehemently opposed to all PA laws as they violate the most basic rights we’re supposed to have with respect to property, but if they are going to exist your first and second amendment rights should be protected.

Tennessee already does it with state government buildings, sounds like every other state is behind.

1 Like

Can you explain further? Is the state now liable in secure areas to the extent they are legally required to provide armed security and can they be held liable civilly and criminally for failing to do so?

1 Like

Yep, they have to provide armed security and metal detectors. If they are not provided, you can carry your firearm. Not only does it pertain to state offices, local is included as well.


They tried to do it with all places, public and private, but hit a roadblock at least we’ve got this. Employers cannot prohibit guns from being kept in parking lots unless they have gated and fenced parking.


Interesting. Since 2016 all state/local/county buildings have to allow licensed carry period with a few exceptions like court clerk’s offices, courtrooms etc, and secured facilities like jails.

Even police stations have to allow you to carry unless you go into an area that is forbidden or one that allows you to secure your weapon in a locker such as the offices beyond the public access areas.

The gov’t however is not liable for your safety however in off limits areas.

1 Like

We’ve gone beyond that. Only secure places such as prisons and federal facilities can disallow you to have a weapon in your vehicle as our castle laws have been extended to our vehicles, boats, etc.

1 Like

We’ve had that for a while as well. Castle is vehicles and anywhere we have a reason to be.


I’m torn. I like the idea that they have to provide security in gun free zones (especially schools), however if they’re civilly sued you know who is going to end up paying for it - the taxpayer. :confused:

Now if you made it so that the politicians who created those gun free zones and didn’t provide the security for those areas had to pay the civil damages… :grin:


I agree with @WildRose on this. Yes, it would cost taxpayer dollars, but, it would force taxpayers to examine the real reasons it cost the money. If carry is allowed, and the excrement hits the fan, liability lies with the one firing their gun. John Q. Public would rather see the individual held responsible in those situations. Courthouses, military installations, police stations, etc have folks with guns already. So, it really just falls to places like a school, library, post office, and hospitals. The rest of the liability should lie with the owner of the private property, which is what I believe the before mentioned Tennessee law says.


Touché! I didn’t think about that aspect. Now I’ve got to mull this over a bit more.


The original bill was anywhere with a no gun sign had to cover your liability the entire time you were without your gun. That’s what failed and we got what we got, which seems better than most from what I’m seeing.


If it’s like here, the states have a pool of money instead of insurance they pay settlements and whatnot with.

1 Like

True, but gov’t hates to have money taken from it’s coffers in lawsuits and ultimately it would require budget cuts from somewhere or the states would have to carry liability insurance to cover those potential losses.

Purse strings are one way to always get the gov’t to rethink what they are currently doing.


I love this idea.
People get a lot more rational when they’re playing with their own money.


Sounds great but since it’s they who would have to pass such laws we’ll never see it.

At least we can hit them in the budget though. If they had to start raising taxes to pay for their neglect people would riot.

1 Like