Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Disarmed Citizen Compensation Act imposes strict liability, triple damages

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Disarmed Citizen Compensation Act imposes strict liability, triple damages

    State Rep. Bob Gannon (R-Slinger) is proposing the “Disarmed Citizen Compensation Act” that would impose liabilities on businesses that ban guns.

    A state lawmaker wants businesses that ban guns to be held strictly liable for any gun-related injury that might occur in their premises, and to pay triple damages.

    The "Disarmed Citizen Compensation Act" is the brainchild of Rep. Bob Gannon (R-Slinger).

    "This bill will give the citizens of Wisconsin a better chance of defending themselves and their loved ones against this scourge of terrorist activity," Gannon said in a news release.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...384034431.html
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-23-2016 at 06:29 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,200
    This is the kind of legislation that should be introduced in the US house and senate instead of fighting antigun legislation we should be on the attack.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    This is the kind of legislation that should be introduced in the US house and senate instead of fighting antigun legislation we should be on the attack.
    If national pro-Second Amendment legislation would be effective then so would anti-gun legislation be effective against the sovereign states. You can't have your cake and eat it too. TRUMP you. TRUMP the establishment.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    In other words, if someone — a concealed carry permit holder or otherwise — injured or killed someone with a gun inside a store that had a sign prohibiting weapons, the business would be on the hook for triple the damages to any victims.


    So, a citizen takes a gun into a gun free zone, shoots somebody, and the business is on the hook? In other words, a gun toting citizen intentionally violates the property right of a business owner, and the business is on the hook?

    How about this, triple damages attached to the LAC who intentionally violates the property right of a business owner, while in the act of defending himself from a terrorist in a Payless Shoes store, injures a fellow citizen, employee, or damages store property as well?

    10x damages if the LAC used a Glock!

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    If national pro-Second Amendment legislation would be effective then so would anti-gun legislation be effective against the sovereign states. You can't have your cake and eat it too. TRUMP you. TRUMP the establishment.
    Not if preemptively disallowed in such legislation.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    I am sure that the strict liability will encourage business owners to install/use gun detectors when they render their customers defenseless.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    GOP lawmaker proposes holding gun-free zone businesses liable for gun violence

    Wisconsin’s 2011 concealed carry law creates immunity from civil liability for gun-related deaths for businesses that allow guns on their property.

    Gannon’s proposal, dubbed the “Disarmed Citizen Compensation Act,” would go a step further in discouraging gun-free zones by allowing a victim of gun violence to sue businesses with such bans and recover triple the amount of damages without regard to who was at fault.

    “There are violent thugs in our midst, some homegrown, some international, who are determined to cause us harm,” Gannon said in a statement. “This bill will give the citizens of Wisconsin a better chance of defending themselves and their loved ones against this scourge of terrorist activity.”

    http://chippewa.com/news/state-and-r...48cb43096.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    Ohio law exempts business owners from tort suits involving gun use by employees or visitors occurring on the businesses' premises. But, you can be prosecuted for trespass if a sign is posted. I still scratch my head on this one.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Maybe a law that makes the customers who enter GFZ liable to reimburse the business owner for any damages.

    After all, the bad guys don't go into MT stores if they want a blood lust to be quenched. The customers draw them there like honey and flies.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    This is the kind of legislation that should be introduced in the US house and senate instead of fighting antigun legislation we should be on the attack.
    I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime. As long as we have members from renegade states like new York, California, New jersey etc... It aint going to happen until voters in those states fix the problem. look at the Democratic sit-in. Charlie Rangle, the tax evader, Elijah Cummings etc... These states want to make us like them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    UPDATE!! 1738 Thursday 23 June 2016

    Under Gannon's bill the liability would attach automatically. In other words, if someone with a gun — a concealed carry permit holder or otherwise — injured or killed someone inside a store that had a sign prohibiting weapons, the business would be on the hook for triple the damages to any victims.

    The Disarmed Citizen Compensation Act "will give the citizens of Wisconsin a better chance of defending themselves and their loved ones against this scourge of terrorist activity," Gannon said in a news release.

    Gannon, who is in the property and casualty insurance business, said he was not aware of any similar law in other states.

    "The insurance industry won't like it," he said, because insurers would have to raise rates for customers who insist on banning weapons from their sites, or insist on more security or metal detectors. Gannon's view is that if businesses do not allow "personal self-defense devices," they must guarantee customer safety in other ways.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...384034431.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Gannon's bill is a very bad idea.

    I thought we had settled this question long ago: if lawmakers can impose penalties on property owners for exercising property rights, then the underlying premise is necessarily that lawmakers can tell property owners how to use their property. Now, the only way I can have standing to tell you how to use your property is if I also have an ownership interest in your property. Moreover, not only must I have an ownership interest in the property in order to have standing to tell you how to use it, my ownership interest must necessarily be senior to your ownership interest.

    Gannon's bill sounds great on the surface. But, the hidden false premise is that the only way anybody--government, neighbor, mother-in-law--can dictate how one uses his property is if that party first has an interest in the property senior to the property owner's.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Gun-Free Businesses Should Pay Triple Damages in Event of Shooting. Breitbart

    Gannon hopes his bill discourage businesses from banning guns in the first place.
    [ ... ]
    Gannon said he is getting support for the bill but will not be releasing names until the bill is ready for consideration in early 2017.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...vent-shooting/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    A great many tyrannies seem to be tolerated in KY.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I don't know of anything that I said that is exclusive to Ky. These are all common restrictions in most parts of the country. Some places may enforce some of them to a greater degree than others, but they exist in most places none the less. The point is that your assertion that others, and by extension government, can't tell people what to do with their private property is pure fiction, or perhaps delusional.
    Absolutely true, but the problem is those (the government) that try to control your property usually attempt to go well beyond their power to regulate. Over the years I have been involved in government overreach in their attempt to regulate private property. The only rights you have are the rights you are willing to fight for. It's amazing how government will start backing off when challenged.

    Private property open to the public comes with strings attached, especially when civil/constitutional rights are involved. I speak from experience. Private property not open to the public deals with a whole other set of rules. Government tries to intermingle them. And when they do it usually ends badly for the government.

    My home is my castle, my business open to the public is not not necessarily my castle.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I don't know of anything that I said that is exclusive to Ky. These are all common restrictions in most parts of the country. Some places may enforce some of them to a greater degree than others, but they exist in most places none the less. The point is that your assertion that others, and by extension government, can't tell people what to do with their private property is pure fiction, or perhaps delusional.
    The second statement you attribute to me are not my words.

    A private citizen most certainly cannot tell me what to do with my property. Only government has the threat of violent physical force to compel my compliance. You stated so yourself.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    If a business takes the stance to make their customers disarmed, then it should be their ability to protection them from people who would bring in a knife, club, gun, etc.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    If a business decides to ban guns on/in their property then the people who wish to retain their ability to defend themselves should respect the property owner's private property rights as much as they want others to respect their right to bear arms and shop somewhere else. After all, no one has any right to be on/in the property owned by someone else... not even for the purpose of shopping since "open to the public" really means "open only to those members of the public who agree to abide by the property owner's rules of use".

    But then that doesn't fit the agenda of "What about MY rights!" and to hell with yours if I don't like the ones you like.

    Oddly enough many folks complain when the liberal gun grabbers go after their favorite right, the right to bear arms, yet will fervently demand property owners give up their favorite right, the private property right to control who is allowed on/in their property, when they ban those who carry guns.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 06-25-2016 at 10:38 AM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •