• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

People are starting to notice...

Status
Not open for further replies.
A taste:

We have clearly learned from examples that gun free zones are no more a deterrent than posted warning labels on just about anything. We have learned that individuals will do whatever they want to accomplish their mission at hand. In the end it is the person on the receiving end of these individuals' planned occurrences that must protect themselves and those most dear to them.

If we could either revive legislation making property owners liable for those in gun free zones or ratify these areas completely then the target of choice, the 'soft target', would not be so soft anymore and the average everyday shopper could go unknowingly about their business and know nothing of the different sort while the odds are evened against Mr. psychopath and his evil popularity plans by the well versed and well trained gun owner.
Click to expand...
 
Assuming a 'reasonable' individual-rights Heller result from the SC, I think we could be just one step or so away from the next-level meaningful litigation.

IOW, the lawsuits start to overturn Chicago / Cook County, etc., etc--and that will be played out with great fanfare by the MSM.

In the meantime, what are the limits of liability for posted mall owners? Specifically,l Nebraska law. Were mall owners indemnified by the recent carry legislation? It seems to me that if there EVER was an incident begging for a lawsuit by a carry registrant NOT carrying in the Omaha mall, this is the one.

IIRC, in that thread, pictures were posted that showed the mall had removed the "no weapons signs." Any good liability lawyer would have a heyday with that one; such a move can readily be common-sense construed as an admission of error / fault.

Jim H.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top