Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Sue Gun Free Zones

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post 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 ?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    I wonder how well this would work. It'd be interesting to say the least

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post 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?
    When the **** hits the fan, ask yourself: What Would Bugly Do?

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post 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.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post 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 .

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post 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 .
    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.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post 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 .

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post 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 .
    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.
    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?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485

    Post 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...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post 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 .
    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.
    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



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    ., ,
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    .

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post 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.
    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.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post 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 .



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    ., ,
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    .

  15. #15
    Regular Member J XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Whiteman,AFB
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    Missouriis introducing a bill to protect the property owners for not having security on the property. I guess that they are affraid that someone might try to sue the property owner for not having security to protectpeople.

    See: http://www.statesurge.com/bills/441151-hb170-missouri. (Thats HB170)
    Luke 22:36 :...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

  16. #16
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    Bill in VA wrote:
    As to Razor's most recent comment, I fail to see what your status as a disabled veteran has to do with it. I ceratinly appreciate your service to our country, but it's obfusciation of the original issue...
    In debate it's known as a fallacy of logic; namley "appeal to emotion."
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post 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.
    Could I trouble you for the case on that? I've never heard of it, and I'd love to give it a read.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post 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.



  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post 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.
    Could I trouble you for the case on that? I've never heard of it, and I'd love to give it a read.
    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.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post 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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485

    Post imported post

    How about if the property owner required you to leave your car unlocked? Wouldn't that be enough "special relationship"?
    Maybe... Let's say for example you were required to leave your key(s) to park, or park by valet. You come back to find your GPS ripped. A sign on the garage says 'not liable for damage, etc.'. You do the right thing and call the police. An investigation ensues, and since the only people to have access to the carwas you or the valet, guess who's going to be questioned?

    My bet is in that case their sign is worth about -$2000.00 or so - enough to cover the gps, any possible mount/wiring damage & court costs, and I'd bet the valet company or garage mgt. would settle after initial blustering. Because think about it, if you sit on the jury that hears that case with those facts how do you vote?

    Now, how does this relate to victim zones? So far the courts have only recognized culpability for injury when there is a 'special relationship' such as that of the innkeeper. Of course, a lot of the victim zone signs say "For the safety of our customers..." - that's an overt statement that they're providing a "safe environment" IMO... Others?










  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    So the question remains, how can we argue a "special relationship"?

    Lets take it this way. The Mall, being known to be a "sensitive area" has at least a moral responsibility to keep us safe while we shop if they are to be removing our ability to defend ourselves.

    That being the case I would argue that if I or someone else in the mall fell victim to a crime that the mall is in fact liable due to the fact that they deprived me of my firearm, and thus were negligent to the point that it caused me or someone harm or loss by the fact of either depriving me my right of protection or by not providing adequate security.

    Mr. Y wrote:
    How about if the property owner required you to leave your car unlocked? Wouldn't that be enough "special relationship"?
    Maybe... Let's say for example you were required to leave your key(s) to park, or park by valet. You come back to find your GPS ripped. A sign on the garage says 'not liable for damage, etc.'. You do the right thing and call the police. An investigation ensues, and since the only people to have access to the carwas you or the valet, guess who's going to be questioned?

    My bet is in that case their sign is worth about -$2000.00 or so - enough to cover the gps, any possible mount/wiring damage & court costs, and I'd bet the valet company or garage mgt. would settle after initial blustering. Because think about it, if you sit on the jury that hears that case with those facts how do you vote?

    Now, how does this relate to victim zones? So far the courts have only recognized culpability for injury when there is a 'special relationship' such as that of the innkeeper. Of course, a lot of the victim zone signs say "For the safety of our customers..." - that's an overt statement that they're providing a "safe environment" IMO... Others?









  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    ., ,
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    .

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    Sorry There is no way in H#!! that you could sue me for telling you that you can't carry open or concealed on my property. When you start paying my taxes and maintenance then you will have some sayso, even an anti gun Landlord can't keep you from carrying on the place he rents to you!!

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    The concept I am working here is that the mall is negligent because they didn't allow me the tools to defend myself, nor the proper security to protect me instead.

    I understand and agree with property rights, but we also have to look at the public aspect of a mall. They are opening their doors to the general public and as such are not in the same arena as my home.

    But we also aren't talking simply about monetary suits. We can sue them to take or not take action. We can sue their policy and seek to argue that if they are open to the general public. My major issue here is that if they actually would provide proper security and protection to the level that I don't need to concern myself with it to the point of carrying I would be ok with it.

    If they don't allow me the means to protect myself then they are responsible for providing that protection and are responsible for the liability of failing to do either.

    I will put it this way. Are they liable to me if there is an earthquake and part of their mall injures me as a result? I am pretty sure that would be the case. If they are liable for my injuries during another act of which they have no control over such as this, then they are liable for a crazed gunman.

    I know the next argument might be that in this scenario the building is owned by them and it injured me and the gun is not owned by them. So work with me here and lets argue this out.



    Bill in VA wrote:
    Theseus wrote:
    ... I would argue that if I or someone else in the mall fell victim to a crime that the mall is in fact liable due to the fact that they deprived me of my firearm, and thus were negligent to the point that it caused me or someone harm or loss by the fact of either depriving me my right of protection or by not providing adequate security.
    But let's not also forget about the bad guy who brought harm to you,particularly if he also violated the mall's rules of use (i.e., he brought his gun into the mall too.) Would it be the mall's fault taht he harmed you with his violation of mall policy? Or taking it even further down the road angels dancing on pin heads, what if, in your attempt to protect yourself by shooting the gun-toting bad guy, you miss and hit Mrs. Jones' 3 year old child. Is that also the mall's fault, sice they didn't keep her child safe? No one's making any of us go into private space where we aren't allowed to carry; we voluntarily enter those places and have to accept some personal responsibility. Part of that personal responsibilty means respecting others' personal proerty rights, part of it means accepting responsibility for our actions, be thery armed or unarmed.



    EOM

Posting Permissions

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