• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun-Free Zones Liability Act

John Hardin

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
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. §13-3119. 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.
Click to expand...
Are there any state legislators who could take this ball and run with it?
 
J

jmf

New member
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
3
Location
, ,
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!
 
N

Nitrox314

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
194
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
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...
 
D

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
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.
 
E

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
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.
 
D

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
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.
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

Nitrox314 wrote:
Has anyone actually drafted a version for Wa Legislation?
Click to expand...
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.
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 
sccrref

sccrref

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
741
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
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.
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top