cc-hangfire
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 589
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?
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?