• 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

Josh:

I think that's a start on a companion piece for a GFZ Liability bill, but shouldn't be included in it. Plus, instead of mentioning gun-free zones - we're trying to de-legitimize them - you should refer to 9.41.300.

Also, "CPL issued by any state of the union" would probably better be "CPL issued by Washington State or any state recognized by Washington" or some such, and then work to get WA to recognize more states' CPLs.
 
J

joshmmm

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
245
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

John Hardin wrote:
Josh:

I think that's a start on a companion piece for a GFZ Liability bill, but shouldn't be included in it. Plus, instead of mentioning gun-free zones - we're trying to de-legitimize them - you should refer to 9.41.300.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the word NON when you saw the words "gun free zone" follow it. I noted later that we needed a better term for a non gun free zone.
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

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

joshmmm wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Josh:

I think that's a start on a companion piece for a GFZ Liability bill, but shouldn't be included in it. Plus, instead of mentioning gun-free zones - we're trying to de-legitimize them - you should refer to 9.41.300.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the word NON when you saw the words "gun free zone" follow it. I noted later that we needed a better term for a non gun free zone.
Click to expand...
No, I saw the "NON". Using the term "non gun-free zone" legitimizes the concept of declaring gun-free zones. I think if we should instead refer to 9.41.300 as the definition of where firearms may not be carried for the purposes of law.

Of course, I may be off-base on what you're trying to accomplish with this - I haven't read through it in detail yet.
 
U

uncoolperson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
608
Location
Bellingham, ,
imported post

shall have his or her right to self-defense in a non "gun-free zone" infringed (this is simple enough--though we need a catchier name defined for non-gun-free-zone earlier in the statute.
Click to expand...

"in an area not openly labeled as a "gun-free-zone" or not described in RCW ##.##.###"


by a systematic policy of denying employment, housing, membership, attendance, entrance, etc., (systematic=unwritten and/or written policies barring the activities listed--more should be added to the list...)
Click to expand...

limiting participation in any lawful activity, regardless of presumption of "at will" or "right to refuse".

OR, if by practice/custom/restrictive rule or condition of carrying, the person is constructively denied any of these rights in effect.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

Remedies:
If a person is discriminated against in employment matters based on the lawful carrying of a weapon in a "non gun-free zone" he or she shall be entitled to compensation and/or injunctive relief in a manner consistent with any other Title VII violation for discrimination in employment matters as enacted by statute and interpreted by applicable case-law at the time of the violation.

(Clearly we would have to add a whole bunch to the remedies section here, but it is a start, and I like the idea of having it simply tied to other existing laws. Thus, as the other civil rights laws get stronger, and more cases are hashed out over time, this law grows as well. Getting it passed would be nearly impossible, but if it did get passed, changing it be a whole lot of work to go back and deal with, so let it live and grow on its own...)
Click to expand...

maybe just add the excercise of State and Federal Constitutional Rights to RCW 49.60 , or something that puts it down in writing as a civil right akin to that RCW with equal remedies.
Unless written policy or signage is in place specifying reasonable limitations (i think it's reasonable that my first is limited at work...), unless not already prohibited or granted elsewhere. (thinking things like FIRE, schools and the first and all that)
having a policy creates liability for limiting entity for harm caused by or could be reasoned to have been avoided by not limiting applicible rights.



this doesn't say guns, so it might get by well.


watch all the concerned pro-every-right people free that up in 5 years... "what, your allowing limitations to RCW 49.60!"


(generalization removed)
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

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

Some changes based on discussion over at NWCDL:

(1) Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government, that
creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from the
commission or attempted commission of a violent offense as defined in RCW
9.94A.030 that occurs against an individual or individuals in such gun-free
zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could
have helped the individual or individuals 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 senior citizen, or a child under 16
years of age, treble damages shall apply.

(2) Liability for damages is not mitigated, reduced or eliminated by the
provision of guards, whether unarmed or armed, or by any other physical
security measures.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any
building, office, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in
or upon any public conveyance, or in any place of employment, 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, excluding those places and circumstances where
possession of a firearm is prohibited by RCW 9.41.300.
Click to expand...
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Someone wrote:
Remedies:
If a person is discriminated against in employment matters based on the lawful carrying of a weapon in a "non gun-free zone" he or she shall be entitled to ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why do we need to even say "non gun-free zone" here. That is already covered by the words "lawful carry". To further define lawful carry is redundant.
 
D

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

John Hardin wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
Why should their be triple damages for a minority?
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

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

David.Car wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
Why should their be triple damages for a minority?
Click to expand...
That was in the original Arizona legislation. I don't clearly grasp the logic either - maybe to make the proposal more palatable to those who believe a "hate crime" is worse than a regular assault. It's not in the current version.

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_gun_free_zones.txt

The next step is to get a rep (preferably more than one) to propose it.
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

John Hardin wrote:
David.Car wrote:
The next step is to get a rep (preferably more than one) to propose it.
Click to expand...
Once the election is over I can sit down with Doug Ericksen. I'm sure we can get him on board. I am also going to be asking him to reintroduce the bill that would have the state send you a renewal notice for your CPL to bring it in line with every other license the state offers.
 
Bill Starks

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
imported post

Could this also be used to allow employees to keep weapons in vehicles on company property? Or would a new bill have to be introduced?

Florida, Kentucky and other states have laws that allow employees to lock up a weapon in their vehicle on company property without recourse from said company.
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

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

M1Gunr wrote:
Could this also be used to allow employees to keep weapons in vehicles on company property? Or would a new bill have to be introduced?

Florida, Kentucky and other states have laws that allow employees to lock up a weapon in their vehicle on company property without recourse from said company.
Click to expand...
Note that this proposal doesn't seek to prohibit gun-free zones, so it wouldn't "allow" employees to keep weapons in vehicles on company property.

It's intended to shift the risk equation enough that people won't think that simply declaring a GFZ is effective security or a cheap and easy way to reduce their liability - "Hey! I declared this a gun-free zone! It's not my fault a nutcase shot a dozen people here!"

Company parking lots are a different topic: http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_car.txt
 
Bill Starks

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
imported post

Company parking lots are a different topic: http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_car.txt
Click to expand...

This exactly what I have been looking for, for the last few hours. I've been looking for Oklahoma's since we have CPL reciprocity with them and they enacted a "bring your gun to work law." I figured to add the best of FL, OK, KY into ours and see about getting it pushed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top