Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Civil Liability Immunity for Property Owners From Felonies

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    How could we reasonably get civil liability immunity for property owners from felonies, committed by a third party, on their land, written into law?

    The simple fact is that in our tort culture people would rather createa "gun free zone" so when someone starts a firefight on their property, they can point to a sign or policy and say, "Well, see we did everything we could." This is very evidentat universities, due to the fact that they think theyare liable (I'm not sure if there is a good test case for this) if alawful carrier does something illegal, but if someone violates a gun ban, and shoots 30 people (VTech) they can say it was against policy and wash the liability (but not blood) off their hands.

    While some idealists feel thatanyone who creates a gun free zone should be liable for injury to those on their property, the extent of the damage caused remains hard to quantify.

    Here's the middle of the road approach-give private property owners civil immunity for the results ofviolent felonies that occur on their property. It still leaves them vulnerable to negligence related actions (which is necessary), while mitigating their fear thatthird partieswill do something wrong with a friearmand their fear of subsequent liability for random shootings.Let'ssee what we can come up with, the results of which I will includeinmy next letters to a couple state senators with whom I communicate semi-regularly.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    I don't think this will ever happen because for a civil tort to be valid it usually has to be shown the the injury was directly caused by the property owner through negligence or recklessness. Someone coming onto their property who is violating their policy hardly constitutes direct negligence.

    Don't get me wrong I would love to see a law like this passed but in my opinion there is no way legislators are going to try and take away a property owners right to regulate activity on their property.
    "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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Shoreline, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    I allow anyone who is legal to carry on my property, holidays, get togethers, etc. But one thing I firmly disagree with many on this site is this. Its MY property, that I paid for. You have no right to carry on MY property if I post no guns. You can choose not to enter if that is the case, But I'm the King of My Castle, and if i did theoretically ban guns and catch a concealed carrier they can be construed as a threat to my safety and my families, and would be dealt with accordingly.

    As I said I dont, my property I actually promote OC. But some of you guys go a little over the top think its your right to carry anywhere and everywhere. Disrepecting personal property rights is almost as bad as anti gun legislation. Just my opinion

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pullman/Moscow, Washington, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    ScottyDog wrote:
    I allow anyone who is legal to carry on my property, holidays, get togethers, etc. But one thing I firmly disagree with many on this site is this. Its MY property, that I paid for. You have no right to carry on MY property if I post no guns. You can choose not to enter if that is the case, But I'm the King of My Castle, and if i did theoretically ban guns and catch a concealed carrier they can be construed as a threat to my safety and my families, and would be dealt with accordingly.

    As I said I dont, my property I actually promote OC. But some of you guys go a little over the top think its your right to carry anywhere and everywhere. Disrepecting personal property rights is almost as bad as anti gun legislation. Just my opinion
    I agree, private property is private property. However, the idea is to remove the motivation for sweeping gun bans, not restrict the rights of property owners. It's not about restricting rights rather liberating private property owners from frivilous lawsuitsfrom crimes committed on their property by tird parties.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    tanman wrote:
    ScottyDog wrote:
    I allow anyone who is legal to carry on my property, holidays, get togethers, etc. But one thing I firmly disagree with many on this site is this. Its MY property, that I paid for. You have no right to carry on MY property if I post no guns. You can choose not to enter if that is the case, But I'm the King of My Castle, and if i did theoretically ban guns and catch a concealed carrier they can be construed as a threat to my safety and my families, and would be dealt with accordingly.

    As I said I dont, my property I actually promote OC. But some of you guys go a little over the top think its your right to carry anywhere and everywhere. Disrepecting personal property rights is almost as bad as anti gun legislation. Just my opinion
    I agree, private property is private property. However, the idea is to remove the motivation for sweeping gun bans, not restrict the rights of property owners. It's not about restricting rights rather liberating private property owners from frivilous lawsuitsfrom crimes committed on their property by tird parties.
    I get what you mean, tanman, although it appears your idea is being misinterpreted.

Posting Permissions

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