• 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.

Sue Gun Free Zones

R

R a Z o R

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
861
Location
Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
imported post

GUN FREE ZONES should have armed guards if I am required to give up my right to keep and bear arms inorder to be at the property . I am tired of of all of the horrible killings happening at this unprotected GUN FREE ZONES .

Where is the beef ? [ armed guards ]

The victims of these unprotected zones should sue in groups . Can you imagine how easily it will be getting the information during depositions from the proud left ? I wonder if the anti-gunners will ever admit that they are the ones with blood on their hands because of taking away the victims right to keep and bear arms for the lawful purpose of self defense ?
 
B

bugly

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
imported post

unfortunately, those anti-gunners are disillusioned to the point that they think if we ban all guns, there won't be any in the criminal's hands, either. But, they really haven't thought it out, have they? Of course England outlawed guns, and now they have gangs of criminals (some still using guns) committing crimes with anything else they can find. It doesn't stop crime, only a strong deterrent from committing the crime in the first place will work. The best one I know of is the thought that your next "victim" might put a hole in your body big enough to put a cue-stick through and you'll never see the next sunrise, good deterrent, eh?
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Razor, I mean this in a playful way.

Think for just a minute. Engage brain.

GFZs have been a topic in the 2A world for some years.

If suing wasso easy, don't you think it likely to have already occurred? Especially with the wide variety of places that mass-shootings have occured? Places where people have actually suffered physical injury or loss of a loved oneat the hands of shooters.

Don't you at least suspect this idea has been batted around by others?

Don't you at least suspect that some of those who have batted around the idea were pro-gun attorneys? With litigator friends, if not themselves litigators?

Maybe one of theattorneys who are forummembers can give us the gist of why such lawsuits have not occurred.
 
R

R a Z o R

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
861
Location
Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
imported post

... Citizen ...

With all respect I am ready to ask why not sue the GUN FREE ZONES if a armed guard is not provided .How many times does this samescenario have to be played out ?

It is true that I am new to the RKBA arena . I will also bet there are many others here also involved and learning .

I say take the fight to the idiots' wallets . Our many pennieswill make a mighty mountain .

That's just my 2 cents .
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

R a Z o R wrote:
... Citizen ...

With all respect I am ready to ask why not sue the GUN FREE ZONES if a armed guard is not provided .How many times does this samescenario have to be played out ?

It is true that I am new to the RKBA arena . I will also bet there are many others here also involved and learning .

I say take the fight to the idiots' wallets . Our many pennieswill make a mighty mountain .

That's just my 2 cents .
Click to expand...
Pending the arrival of an attorney, I'll speculate. Even on this forum, we hashed this around a bit. Just us common joes. You'll forgive for not wanting to discuss it back and forth. Call this a recognition of my own lack of knowledge; thus I'm just gonna stick to some speculation:

I don't think the courts will accept such a lawsuit. I think it would get tossed out.

The shooter caused the actual injury, not theproperty owners.

The property owners have property rights. Generally, they can accept people or not according to their own rules; its their property. To date the only restrictions about which I am aware are the anti-discrimination laws. They cannot discriminate based on gender, race, etc., etc. Congress hasn't put people who exercise the 2nd Amendment on that list of protected classes of people, yet.

There may be more speculations. I'd be really surprised if there were not actual reasons. I'd be just tickled if an attorney said that I speculated right on at least something.
 
R

R a Z o R

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
861
Location
Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
imported post

... Citizen ...

I googled : LAWSUIT GUN FREE ZONES and found a ton of information . Even found a reference back to opencarry . Not one place did I find a reference describing the armed guard protecting those that had to give up there right of self defense scenario . How many would reverse their right as owner of the property to ask a lawful citizen to be unprotected or have to pay additional salaries for armed guards ? And isn't it our national power that must be applied on the local and state levels inorder to change theaggressive progressiveliberal socialist's agendas of disarming America ?

Is there an attorney that wants to cut into this bone ? Perhaps the time of common sense and thinking positive has come .
 
D

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
R a Z o R wrote:
... Citizen ...

With all respect I am ready to ask why not sue the GUN FREE ZONES if a armed guard is not provided .How many times does this samescenario have to be played out ?

It is true that I am new to the RKBA arena . I will also bet there are many others here also involved and learning .

I say take the fight to the idiots' wallets . Our many pennieswill make a mighty mountain .

That's just my 2 cents .
Click to expand...
Pending the arrival of an attorney, I'll speculate. Even on this forum, we hashed this around a bit. Just us common joes. You'll forgive for not wanting to discuss it back and forth. Call this a recognition of my own lack of knowledge; thus I'm just gonna stick to some speculation:

I don't think the courts will accept such a lawsuit. I think it would get tossed out.

The shooter caused the actual injury, not theproperty owners.

The property owners have property rights. Generally, they can accept people or not according to their own rules; its their property. To date the only restrictions about which I am aware are the anti-discrimination laws. They cannot discriminate based on gender, race, etc., etc. Congress hasn't put people who exercise the 2nd Amendment on that list of protected classes of people, yet.

There may be more speculations. I'd be really surprised if there were not actual reasons. I'd be just tickled if an attorney said that I speculated right on at least something.
Click to expand...
But in that same vein, if you leave your car unlocked and someone steals it, aren't you on some level legally culpable for the crime too? Perhaps as an accessory?
 
M

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
imported post

No, you are not an 'accessory' or even partially responsible as a property owner if a guest has a vehicle stolen from your property unless you have established a "special relationship" with the vehicle owner either by contract, wordor implication.

For example, if you were offering secure storage for vehicles and the vehicle was stolen, then you might be exposed in a lawsuit. OTOH, if your friend isvisiting and their car is stolen, no responsibility. basically.

Although I do thinkturnabout would be fair play. Couldn't gun owners sue organizations & citieswhich have backed lawsuits that are trumped by the protection of lawful commerce in arms law? Surely we all suffer increased cost to participate in such commerce and surely we should be able to recover it...
 
H

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

Citizen wrote:
R a Z o R wrote:
... Citizen ...

With all respect I am ready to ask why not sue the GUN FREE ZONES if a armed guard is not provided .How many times does this samescenario have to be played out ?

It is true that I am new to the RKBA arena . I will also bet there are many others here also involved and learning .

I say take the fight to the idiots' wallets . Our many pennieswill make a mighty mountain .

That's just my 2 cents .
Click to expand...
Pending the arrival of an attorney, I'll speculate. Even on this forum, we hashed this around a bit. Just us common joes. You'll forgive for not wanting to discuss it back and forth. Call this a recognition of my own lack of knowledge; thus I'm just gonna stick to some speculation:

I don't think the courts will accept such a lawsuit. I think it would get tossed out.

The shooter caused the actual injury, not theproperty owners.

The property owners have property rights. Generally, they can accept people or not according to their own rules; its their property. To date the only restrictions about which I am aware are the anti-discrimination laws. They cannot discriminate based on gender, race, etc., etc. Congress hasn't put people who exercise the 2nd Amendment on that list of protected classes of people, yet.

There may be more speculations. I'd be really surprised if there were not actual reasons. I'd be just tickled if an attorney said that I speculated right on at least something.
Click to expand...
Would easily get a settlement out of the insurance company that insures the mall (for instance) - start getting enough of those and they would rethink their policies

I think it could get to a jury, one could assume that if they ban people from carrying they are providing security. While police have no duty to protect, who says the same applies to private companies?

And, you don't need to convince the entire jury ;)
 
N

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Mr. Y wrote:
No, you are not an 'accessory' or even partially responsible as a property owner if a guest has a vehicle stolen from your property unless you have established a "special relationship" with the vehicle owner either by contract, wordor implication.

For example, if you were offering secure storage for vehicles and the vehicle was stolen, then you might be exposed in a lawsuit. OTOH, if your friend isvisiting and their car is stolen, no responsibility. basically.
Click to expand...

How about if the property owner required you to leave your car unlocked? Wouldn't that be enough "special relationship"?

Bill, what about schools and the gun-free zones around them? That's public property, iirc.
 
R

R a Z o R

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
861
Location
Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
imported post

... Bill in VA ...

As a disabled Veteran why do I feel such discrimination like I am the criminal about to be arrested ? What is it called when the predator kills the old crippled prey ? Is it natural selection ? Perhaps PETA can help me , because I promise to allow the predator to be able to retreat .

God made predators and Colt made cripples equal .

So when an off duty or retired LE ignores the NO GUN / GUN FREE ZONE signs and CC anyway because they can and when the attoney's quild only do as they are instructed , perhaps we the owners need to write a note of better instructions .

If this and if that has zero to do with a law abiding citizen's ancient right of self defense .
 
N

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Bill in VA wrote:
As far as gun-free school zones, that's a federal issue,and one that's been overturned once as unConstitutional.
Click to expand...
Could I trouble you for the case on that? I've never heard of it, and I'd love to give it a read.
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

I have wondered the same thing. This is why I have found it more important to support businesses that don't mind my carrying.

I don't do business with certain malls in the area because they don't allow my open carry. So far I have only been asked to leave one business for OC and I made it clear to them I was within the law and that neither my friends or myself would do business with them because of it.

That is why it is important to not do business with anti businesses and to catalog and inform them of such.

Although I like the idea of a lawsuit, I dont' believe you can simply file suit without having suffered damages.

Same thing for fraud. I had someone try to use a fraudulent credit card when I had my office supply business. When I called the police they said they couldn't do anything because I did not actually fall victim to the person. I didn't think to argue that it did cost me $1 to address verify the card, which was a loss.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

NightOwl wrote:
Bill in VA wrote:
As far as gun-free school zones, that's a federal issue,and one that's been overturned once as unConstitutional.
Click to expand...
Could I trouble you for the case on that? I've never heard of it, and I'd love to give it a read.
Click to expand...

http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/549/index.html

The short story is the US Supreme court ruled the original Gun Free School Zones Act unconstitutional as an either an over-reach of the commerce clause or based on no constitutional provision to turn local police into federal enforcers, I forget which.

Congress came back (the next year?) and re-wrote it such that a gun that moved in interstate commerce could not...1000ft...school. Etc.

It hasn't beenchallenged in the courts to my knowledge. Neither has anybody been arrested and charged under it to my knowledge.
 
N

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

That is very interesting, thanks for the link. First I'd heard that it was struck down, guess I had my head buried in the sand or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top