We’ve had discussions about this in a few different threads. I find myself in support of these bills.
8 Likes
Big fan of that idea.
I particularly love this part of the article
The Washington Post said the figure comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center’s updated 2014 report. That report stated that 98.4 percent of mass shootings from 1950 to July 10, 2016, happened in gun-free zones.
“We call them killing zones, not gun-free zones,” Eisen said.
Neither the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and nor the Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence organization returned emails seeking comment on the bills
2 Likes
I support this idea. When my child gets hurt on the school playground during the hours he’s required to be there, they are liable, and carry insurance for it. The slippery slope, would come with private property. If we can tell them what they can do, and are libel for, then what will stop them from imposing their ideals on our private property?
1 Like
@45IPAC I think we’re already there on that slope. It may be different in different states, but when I lived in CA, if someone tripped and fell on your property, they could certainly sue you, and your insurance company would have to pay. And your insurance rates would go up. In fact, there are professional victims who are repeat suit-bringers,
and lawyers who primarily make their money that way.
I’m thinking that is somewhat different with private stores because i am not obligated to be on their premises, unlike, say, the power company or the post office or a k-12 school or a hospital. For any place that is not a monopoly on a service I could go elsewhere. But if it is a must-go monopoly, I’m a fan of making them take responsibility if they require me to disarm.
1 Like
That’s kind of my take on it. Would the insurance still have to pay, if the home owners had “No Trespassing signs” and “No Soliciting” in plain view?
I agree also about the places we “must” go vs “choose” to go.
1 Like
I agree,
My family and I have already had this talk…
It does not matter if they did a law or not here in Louisiana. If say, I was to die on the premises
of a non-carry zone and die by GSW… My family would know that the first person to go after would be the owner for not allowing protection. WIN OR LOSE; As Coach O would say…WE COMIN!
2 Likes
In California, generally yes they would have to pay. California is pretty much a nanny state and if you didn’t physically prevent them from entering your property, you’re pretty much liable
When we first moved to Missouri, I was rather shocked (and then pleased) to see things like large culvert overpasses without guardrails… I mean Come on You actually expect people to not do stupid things while driving? You expect me not to drive off the road in stupid places? 
In Missouri if you do something stupid and get hurt, it’s generally understood to be your own fault. In California if you do something stupid and get hurt, it’s generally considered to be the fault of people who might possibly have physically preventing you from getting in that situation.
2 Likes
I love this Idea!! The Mall where I am at has “No Carry” signs on the doors. Even though Michigan Laws do not recognize them. If someone wanted to do a Large Mass shooting with hundreds of people there, A large mall would be the place. Plus as everyone knows, Most of the shootings we’ve had were at Gun Free Zones.
2 Likes
It may be “Private” property per say, but I would lean towards Public property Privately owned. Our Property (Where you or I live" is Private Property as we don’t invite or allows Hundreds of people in/on the property. If they allow them at the mall and will pay for a broken arm becaquse there was liquid on the floor and they slipped. Then they should pay if a person was wounded during a shooting at/on said property. Just my humble opinion.
3 Likes