Would you support a Liability Act for "Gun-Free Zones?"

I'd support it

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

I cannot find the report. My googlefu is letting me down. Or, I am getting him confused with Fincher. As I am finding the reports on him: http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt The more I think about it, the more I think I might have got those 2 confused.

I do like how DesJarlais has the 2nd lowest cost of Congressional Staff.

Again, looking for the report. I believe it had something to do with his nasty divorce.

Try him, see what he can do. Try them all. Worst they can do is say no.

The reason I asked is because my local TEA party chapter (Maury County) has an excellent relationship with Desjarlais, and his office has always been really good at keeping us informed on any legislature we discuss. When I first moved here at the end of September 2011, I googled his voting record and found him to be extremely 2A supportive. I wasn't a huge fan of 822 because I HATE the idea of the federal government being involved in a process that shouldn't even exist at the state level to begin with, but otherwise have agreed with most of his votes. I know a lot of people did support HB 822, and there were definitely many valid reasons, so I don't even consider that a strike against him, I just didn't think the feds needed to be in the mix.

MKEgal said:

It's a right protected by the US Constitution, by which all states promised to abide as they joined the USA.
The state is infringing that right, but it still exists.

Click to expand...

actually, The constitution was written to restrict the authority of the Federal government, only in certain instances does it prohibit States from anything, and every power not expressly delegated to the Fed is reserved for the States. using the 14th amendment as authority, some amendments in the Bill of rights have been incorporated as applying to the States, but not all of them uniformly.

As for the original topic of the post, I have always been fairly supportive of the idea on a State level, but unless it was written in fairly specific and careful language, it would likely do much more harm than good. BTW, isn't DesJarlais a rep in the US house? which would mean that this would be a Federal law? A law of this type would, IMHO, be outside of the constitutionally delegated authority of the Federal gov't.

We have more to gain by bring our signage laws in line with the majority of states as mentioned in the OP.

unreconstructed1 said:

...Every power not expressly delegated to the Fed is reserved for the States.

Click to expand...

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I wouldn't support this idea directly. I tend to prefer "carrot" initiatives over "stick" initiatives.

Hence, I would support a modified version of your idea. Specifically, I would support adopting Wisconsin's law. Basically, nothing changed for businesses who chose to post. Any liability (or lack thereof) they had before the law was changed is still there now. However, businesses who choose not to post are immune from liability for any actions committed by permit holders. While this idea would do nothing for businesses who post on principle, it would perhaps give an incentive for businesses who are posting just for liability reasons to remove the signs.