trapperjohn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 567
This possibility should be made a reality. Law should be passed where the property owner who denies his patrons the right to carry is responsible for any injury suffered as a result.
the reality is allready there, you don't "pass a law" for something like this. this is Tort. it is established via case law examples. As soon as some CCP owner is disarmed and then harmed in the establishement he shoudl file a civil sut for damages. all the plaintiff would have to prove to a jury is that:
(a) he was harmed
(b) he would not have been harmed but for the act of the defendant
(c) that a reasonably prudent person would have allowed him to carry or provide an equal level of protection
if he can prove these to a jury he has one a negliance case.
you have to diferrentiate between civil (tort) law, and criminal law.
I'd also like to see law requiring lock boxes or check rooms for any places which require you to be unarmed. If you allow the public access, but ban the carrying of concealed weapons, you should have to provide a safe place for the disarmed public to store the weapons.
when are we going to learn the solution is not more government and more laws, it is less government and less laws!!
do we realy want feds or whoever inspecting establishement that post so that they can determine the suitablility of their storage. come on people, lets not fall into the trap the leftist have and get the government to force people to do what we want.
short and sweet, a business does something i don't like, i don't go there. period.
i do not moan that the government should pass another law to force them to do something they do not want to do so that i can go there.
a city near me just passed a smoking ban, can't smoke in any place the public goes in that town. its a terrible law passed by the few blissninnies who hate smoking. lets not be like them!!