Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76

Thread: Gun-Free Zones Liability Act

  1. #1
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Let's follow Arizona's lead:

    http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

    The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act of 2008

    Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such
    conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right
    or ability to self defense.

    REFERENCE TITLE: Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act
    State of Arizona
    (sponsoring house)
    Forty-Eighth Legislature
    Second Regular Session
    2008

    __.B. _____ Introduced by ________________________

    AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION.
    Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
    Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
    adding new section 13-3119:

    A.R.S. ยง13-3119. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.

    A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a person who is a member of a minority as federally defined, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.

    B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12 (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14 (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Trespass and Burglary), Chapter 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related Offenses), Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order) and Chapter 36 (Family Offenses).

    C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to keep arms or to bear arms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.
    Are there any state legislators who could take this ball and run with it?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    136

    Post imported post

    That is brilliant.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    you write the email for me, i'll blanket the mine.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    +1,000,000,000

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    although with our employment laws, couldn't a company just fire all the carriers?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    I'm surprised we haven't seen lawsuits holding these people\places liable, then again I can't stand to watch the news so maybe it has happened. When someone wins a case I think we will see most gun free privately controlled zones disappear, don't know about gubment areas, they have lots of lawyers. This looks like a great law!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Senator Pam Roach would be a good contactif you are in her district.

    Jim

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    love it!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    federal way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    This is unbelievably, well done. I hope it passes

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Great idea!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Take out the stuff granting triple damages for certain priveleged classes of people, and I'm all for it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Has anyone actually drafted a version for Wa Legislation? I mean can we get a group together to petition for it and get however many signitures we need for it? If we band together, we could pull it off...

  14. #14
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    I've wondered about this very thing before (can those who post signs creating CPZs be held liable). I hope this thing passes. Looks like something that needs tobe passed here in Ohio.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    this is a great time, politically, to be pushing this bill. I would love to see it in Washington, and I think that in light of the recent shootings at gun-free zones, we could get a lawmaker interested in pushing this.

  16. #16
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    If we could just get it passed in one state, I would not be suprised if it started to "snowball" and make passage in other states easier.

  17. #17
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Nitrox314 wrote:
    Has anyone actually drafted a version for Wa Legislation?
    Probably not. I was going to take a shot at it this weekend.

    Before petitioning, contact your legislator and ask them to sponsor or co-sponsor a similar bill.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    You'll have trouble with the statute or ordinance part. This would require that the state be liable if you are injured in a courtroom or jail where you are prohibited from carrying. I don't think that the state will accept liability. However, remove that and only apply it to areas that the state has NOT prohibited you and I think that you will find a much more receptive audience.

    For the record, I like the original, I just think it has much less chance of being passed.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    I like it for the most part. My suggested change would be to take out minority and in its place put hate crime. With that I would support it 100 per cent.

  20. #20
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    You'll have trouble with the statute or ordinance part. This would require that the state be liable if you are injured in a courtroom or jail where you are prohibited from carrying. I don't think that the state will accept liability. However, remove that and only apply it to areas that the state has NOT prohibited you and I think that you will find a much more receptive audience.

    For the record, I like the original, I just think it has much less chance of being passed.
    The definition clause already has "open to the public". Is a courtroom or jail considered open to the public (apart from the lobby areas and such) ?

    I think that concern is already covered.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    You'll have trouble with the statute or ordinance part. This would require that the state be liable if you are injured in a courtroom or jail where you are prohibited from carrying. I don't think that the state will accept liability. However, remove that and only apply it to areas that the state has NOT prohibited you and I think that you will find a much more receptive audience.

    For the record, I like the original, I just think it has much less chance of being passed.
    The definition clause already has "open to the public". Is a courtroom or jail considered open to the public (apart from the lobby areas and such) ?

    I think that concern is already covered.
    Yes a courtroom is open to the public unless it is a closed trial by order of the presiding judge.

    I think "open to the public excluding areas off limits as outlined in RCW 9.41.300" would be a better wording for it. The treble liability part for certain individuals, I think is great. It will make people think twice before creating a no gun policy because there are usually no times when there is not a child or disabled person on thier premises. Why shouldn't people who can't get around easily be awarded treble damages because someone does not want firearms in thier building that is open to the public? I think the terrorist and minority clause needs to be removed. The owner of a store cannot control the parking lot where a car bomb occurs which rips into a building and causes death to someone.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  22. #22
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote: I think the terrorist and minority clause needs to be removed. The owner of a store cannot control the parking lot where a car bomb occurs which rips into a building and causes death to someone.




    Andif it's a suicide bomber, a lot of them use a "deadman switch" once activated, if they are shot, BOOM. So taking them out would not be a viable option.


  23. #23
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Yes a courtroom is open to the public unless it is a closed trial by order of the presiding judge.

    I think "open to the public excluding areas off limits as outlined in RCW 9.41.300" would be a better wording for it. The treble liability part for certain individuals, I think is great. It will make people think twice before creating a no gun policy because there are usually no times when there is not a child or disabled person on thier premises.
    {Crikey, I wish this forum's editor did a better job of editing quotes... }

    Well, bringing in RCW 9.41.300 leads to "gun free zones defined by law except as excluded by this other law..." - though perhaps letting the state off while still restricting municipalities is not a bad idea.

    And the treble damages part: so if a shooter shoots a kid, and only a kid, does liability apply at all since the kid wouldn't be reasonably expected to arm themselves in the first place? And if they shoot me *and* a kid, I get treble damages but the kid gets nothing? That part strikes me as a little odd. Maybe extra wording about the child's parent or guardian being prohibited from being armed. Or would your kid getting shot be legally considered damages to you, and thus be covered by the existing wording?


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Yes a courtroom is open to the public unless it is a closed trial by order of the presiding judge.

    I think "open to the public excluding areas off limits as outlined in RCW 9.41.300" would be a better wording for it. The treble liability part for certain individuals, I think is great. It will make people think twice before creating a no gun policy because there are usually no times when there is not a child or disabled person on thier premises.
    {Crikey, I wish this forum's editor did a better job of editing quotes... }

    Well, bringing in RCW 9.41.300 leads to "gun free zones defined by law except as excluded by this other law..." - though perhaps letting the state off while still restricting municipalities is not a bad idea.

    And the treble damages part: so if a shooter shoots a kid, and only a kid, does liability apply at all since the kid wouldn't be reasonably expected to arm themselves in the first place? And if they shoot me *and* a kid, I get treble damages but the kid gets nothing? That part strikes me as a little odd. Maybe extra wording about the child's parent or guardian being prohibited from being armed. Or would your kid getting shot be legally considered damages to you, and thus be covered by the existing wording?
    I would tend to believe that a child being shot in gun free environment would qualify the parent for treble damages. The way I see it is that the adult has a better ability to retreat or defend themselves than a child or handicapped person does.

    Maybe not restricting the treble damage clause to a certain group but instead apply it if a death occurs as a result of a shooting would be a better idea. Afterall if a dad or mom are restricted from carrying a firearm and are gunned down by someone then the family should have the ability to go for treble damages because of the loss of income.

    Just some random thoughts.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    One also needs to be carefull that one does not "Create" the ability for local municipalities to create Gun Free Zones. Right now they cannot, but if this law is not worded carefully it might be used as justification to create one.After all... "the state says we can, as long as we accept liability"

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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