Gun Free Zones - floating a new idea

[cc-hangfire]

With recent world events, I'm posting to introduce an idea/suggestion for gun free zones.

I propose that locations that are gun free zones by legislative action and by private ownership decision be made legally responsible for the protection and security of their customers, clients, vendors, and employees on those premises.

I realize that this may not be feasible at government owned property given sovereign immunity. It is done de-facto, though, at court houses and airports (although there is no guarantee of individual personal safety at either of those). Those two places actively screen entry and have professional law enforcement personnel present.

As a citizen with a legal carry permit, I acknowledge my personal responsibility for my own safety and have taken to steps to legally equip and train myself accordingly. When a property owner or business owner elects to prohibit me having my firearm, I don't think it is unreasonable for them to assume responsibility for my safety. If this were true today, gun free zones would be hard targets and would incur the corresponding costs of hardening their boundaries, controlling access, and providing security personnel. Posting signs is cheap; becoming responsible for actual security is expensive.

Do I think this would succeed? Probably not; but it would force the realization that each individual is responsibly for their own personal safety and security. And would highlight the need for hardened locations if we really want gun free zones.

At the least, we can introduce and promote this idea to our elected officials, the media, and the non-gun community. Folks who haven't thought much about the concept think that law enforcement's function is to provide personal, individual protection. Thoughts and opinions?

 

[Red Wind]

A good thought but probably impossible to bring about. Even when the SCOTUS in USA vs Lopez (1995) ruled against the 1.000 foot GFSZ's, Congress snuck it back in under the Commerce Clause almost immediately.

20 years later and these killer zones are still in effect, without saving a single life, TMK.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I propose that locations that are gun free zones by legislative action and by private ownership decision be made legally responsible for the protection and security of their customers, clients, vendors, and employees on those premises. ...

Fine, but now all you need to do is marshal the political support sufficient to cause state legislatures to enact laws producing that result. This thus becomes a simple exercise in politics.

 

[oneounceload]

When a property owner or business owner elects to prohibit me having my firearm, I don't think it is unreasonable for them to assume responsibility for my safety.

You do have the option of not going to those places. If the police and government entities are not held liable (the folks who ARE supposed to protect you), why put that onus on someone else?

 

[Frank Ettin]

When a property owner or business owner elects to prohibit me having my firearm, I don't think it is unreasonable for them to assume responsibility for my safety.

You do have the option of not going to those places. If the police and government entities are not held liable (the folks who ARE supposed to protect you), why put that onus on someone else?

And that is an example of the sort of political resistance which would need to be overcome to achieve the legislative result sought.

 

[chipcom]

I prefer to respect other people's wishes in regards to their property. I don't want to be like the anti-gun crowd and attempt to use the law to infringe on other people's rights so I can feel good about being able to exercise my own. If I am afraid to be disarmed while on his property, I have the choice to just walk away. If I have no choice but to be on his property (an employer for example) and something bad happens to me, I will still have plenty of possible legal recourse...and if not, oh well. Freedom isn't always safe and you can't always get paid for being injured due to respecting the rights of others.

 

[silicosys4]

No thank you.
If I don't like what a private property owner has posted regarding my rights to carry a firearm, I don't do business there.
I won't undermine my own rights as a property owner simply to poke others in the eye with a sharp stick regarding theirs.

 

[stonecutter2]

No thank you.
If I don't like what a private property owner has posted regarding my rights to carry a firearm, I don't do business there.
I won't undermine my own rights as a property owner simply to poke others in the eye with a sharp stick regarding theirs.

What about publicly funded locations, like schools.

 

[cc-hangfire]

Let me ask this for you to consider for discussions sake:

Do you never attend a concert, football (basketball, baseball, etc) game, movie, church where firearms are prohibited? [I know the law varies state to state regarding public gatherings and school property.]. Your kids or grandkids or nieces or nephews don't attend a public school that's a GFZ? Maybe some can and do avoid these, I & my family participate in the community enough to run across GFZ's in our activities.

Example: colleges - if campus is a GFZ, shouldn't we decide as a nation to have the college harden the property and provide additional security for my children who attend? Just asking because we are creating soft targets with our kids as targets otherwise.

 

[oneounceload]

Example: colleges - if campus is a GFZ, shouldn't we decide as a nation to have the college harden the property and provide additional security for my children who attend? Just asking because we are creating soft targets with our kids as targets otherwise.

No,. again, because your kids do NOT have to go there - it is a CHOICE to attend, not a right or mandatory.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I propose that locations that are gun free zones by legislative action and by private ownership decision be made legally responsible for the protection and security of their customers, clients, vendors, and employees on those premises.

As a commercial property owner, I propose that all CCW be made to carry $20 million in liability coverage for the protection and security of anyone potentially harmed by the CCW carrier. It isn't just good enough that they are "legally responsible" but need to be financially responsible and carry proof of insurance as well.

Sounds less appealing when you, as a CCW could be held to a similar standard, huh?

 

[oneounceload]

^^^^^^ Yep...........

In the UK, to shoot at one of the many shotgun clubs, ALL shooters must carry liability insurance worth millions of pounds; the same holds true in Europe.

http://basc.org.uk/join-basc/basc-members-insurance/

Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it............

 

[old lady new shooter]

deleted