Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: A solution to end the banning of legal carry?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    11

    A solution to end the banning of legal carry?

    Why has nobody proposed legislation making establishments that disarm citizenry, without providing armed guards and metal detectors to insure the unarmed citizen's safety, financially liable if any harm should come to them? Even better if the scope of it would included establishments, townships, corporations, and commons, unless otherwise prohibited by federal law.

    Meaning, if some party wants to ban my firearm, and I am legal to own and carry one, and I am then hurt or killed because criminals enter the area of the firearm ban and harm me, and the party instituting the ban did not have armed guards present to protect me, and did not have proper measures like metal detectors to confirm that all persons were disarmed, then I or my survivors could sue them for financial restitution.

    A law like this would help enforce the 2nd amendment because the insurance costs of businesses/townships/stores/etc banning firearms would skyrocket, unless they took on the even more costly task of hiring armed guards, and assuring all people entering are unarmed, and 100% securing an area to make it safe to be unarmed in.

    Now that's a law I could get behind, and one that would help restore citizens rights.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    Because it would be followed by a law raising my taxes to pay for your metal detectors, and that would be followed by laws restricting my right to carry in those places.

    More law, even well-intentioned, is never the solution.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    11
    That's nonsense.

    Taxes raised to cover the expense of my business banning your right to carry?

    The actual reaction would be the opposite; businesses would drop their anti-gun stances.

    As for the inclusion of townships, it's also non-sensical; you would have to construct a wall around the city, populate it with armed guards in every corner, and have thorough search points for entry.

    That's a beautiful thing - if libs want a gunfree zone it would look exactly like what it really is: a police state.

    This law would give serious teeth to the 2nd ammendment.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    11
    BTW - if you're having problems understanding this law, in a nutshell it means that you cannot disarm lawful citizens without assuming total reponsibility for their safety.

    We almost passed a similar law in Arizona; it was narrowly defeated by the anti-gun lobby propagandizing that it would raise taxes, despite the Governor's own insistence that it would not, and that in most cases the no firearms signs would come down.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    I think Wisconsin and Floridan has some language that says if you post a no gun sign you assume some liability for harm to people on your property. Check their statutes. There may be other states that do this as well.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    I don't recall Florida having a liability provision from my time living there, but I do remember hearing about Wisconsin including just such a thing into its new concealed carry legislation.

    I'd look there as a starting point to find actual legislative wording on the books. Of course the law just went into effect last month (I believe) so give it a year and then you will be able to have a real-world example to counter the anti's argument, should Michigan consider adopting something similar.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    I don't recall Florida having a liability provision from my time living there, but I do remember hearing about Wisconsin including just such a thing into its new concealed carry legislation.

    I'd look there as a starting point to find actual legislative wording on the books. Of course the law just went into effect last month (I believe) so give it a year and then you will be able to have a real-world example to counter the anti's argument, should Michigan consider adopting something similar.
    Thanks for the info, that's a good starting point!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Large Caliber Kick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mooresville, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    224
    A man once went to the doctor and told him he broke his arm in three places. The doctor then told the man "Well if I were you I'd stay out of those places.

    I think the same logic can be applied to this situation. If you are that worried about it then stay out of those places.

    I know I don't trust my or my family's well being to total strangers wether they promise to pay the Hospital and rehab bills or not.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    I think Wisconsin and Floridan has some language that says if you post a no gun sign you assume some liability for harm to people on your property. Check their statutes. There may be other states that do this as well.
    I'm not sure about FL, but in WI, if you do post a sign, you lose immunity from being sued if someone is injured or killed.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeChandler View Post
    Why has nobody proposed legislation making establishments that disarm citizenry, without providing armed guards and metal detectors to insure the unarmed citizen's safety, financially liable if any harm should come to them? Even better if the scope of it would included establishments, townships, corporations, and commons, unless otherwise prohibited by federal law.

    Meaning, if some party wants to ban my firearm, and I am legal to own and carry one, and I am then hurt or killed because criminals enter the area of the firearm ban and harm me, and the party instituting the ban did not have armed guards present to protect me, and did not have proper measures like metal detectors to confirm that all persons were disarmed, then I or my survivors could sue them for financial restitution.

    A law like this would help enforce the 2nd amendment because the insurance costs of businesses/townships/stores/etc banning firearms would skyrocket, unless they took on the even more costly task of hiring armed guards, and assuring all people entering are unarmed, and 100% securing an area to make it safe to be unarmed in.

    Now that's a law I could get behind, and one that would help restore citizens rights.
    it has already been decided by the highest court in this land that the government is not responsible for, nor liable for it's failure in protecting you from harm. every single government entity in this nation will latch on to that ruling in order to escape having to pay any monies out for harm incurred by anyone even with such security systems in place.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Troy, AL
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by DKSuddeth View Post
    it has already been decided by the highest court in this land that the government is not responsible for, nor liable for it's failure in protecting you from harm. every single government entity in this nation will latch on to that ruling in order to escape having to pay any monies out for harm incurred by anyone even with such security systems in place.
    Absolutely correct. ^^^^^^^^^

Posting Permissions

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