W .Va. delegate seeks to hold ‘no-gun zones’ legally liable for shooting injuries.
I think that should happen. I know that many will say private property laws, blah blah other choices and places you can go.
But that is not always the case. I, personally am 100%
disabled, I have to go to 1 Dr. for all of my medications, 1 pharmacy to have all of my medications filled, I can’t have them mailed directly or indirectly, and I can’t change pharmacies until next July.
Plus as an added eff yew, no drive through.That’s how the law is written in here.
Yes, they are one of the Companies that jumped on the bandwagon after Dayton and El Paso.
So now I have to take extra special care that my CCW is extra concealed or disarm completely and pray it’s not my day.
I have to take a fair amount of medications, so I am extra vigilant and have called for an escort 5 times in 13ish years
So if you are forced to disarm by a no gun zo e by the government then yes I absolutely think the government should be held accountable for my safety.
My brother, also a USCCA member, and I have pact that we will sue any place responsible that doesn’t allow firearms in case of one of us being killed. They are liable for violating our 2A rights.
I appreciate the sentiment and what the conversation/thought it’s attempting to initiate (what liability do I take on creating a gun free zone) but always worry about the unintended consequences that seem to follow this type of legislation and/or legal action.
Will these areas then say “fine, now you have to sign a waiver prior to entering or not enter at all?”
Would these places use our own words against us as we’re so fond of saying “only I can be responsible for my personal safety” and saying that’s true regardless of what the allow/disallow in their areas?
Will this increase the attempts by gun controllers to hold fire arms manufactures and sellers liable for incidents that do occur? Because surely if the venue is liable for you not being able to defend yourself in their gun free zone, the seller of those weapons and maybe the manufacturer of those weapons are liable for those that take any illegal actions in those zones.
Again, agree with the sentiment and what it’s attempting to accomplish, but it just seems like a potentially dangerous path to me.
No, I don’t see any of those possible horror scenarios coming to fruition.
Particularly, the idea that you can hold manufacturers and dealers liable for unlawful acts committed by buyers/owners would never survive constitutional muster and if it did, then the broader effects on the economy when that liability was extended to all products bought/sold in the US are staggering.
I agree re the manufacture’s liability but it took a superior court judge to come to that decision, it passed lower court.
But then the same then would be the same for all airports, political events or Federal Buildings where weapons are not allowed? Those are “Gun Free zones” how realistic is it for them to be held liable for the unlawful acts committed by entrants into those venues when they held them to the same standard they held you to. After all law breakers will be law breakers.
I don’t know if the waivers are that far fetched…just think about how many waivers we accept just to have access to the various web sites, apps etc today. I could see a blanket waiver of "by entering these property, you are waiving all rights to blah blah blah…(they exist now).
As a rule you can only sue the gov’t if they allow you to. Generally they are protected due to “sovereign immunity”, even individual PO’s are protected with limited immunity as long as they act within the law and department policy.