royAG46
New member
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.
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.