• 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.

A solution to end the banning of legal carry?

MikeChandler

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
11
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
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.
 

MikeChandler

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
11
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

MikeChandler

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
11
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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.
 

MikeChandler

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
11
Location
Chandler, AZ
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!
 

Large Caliber Kick

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
224
Location
Mooresville, North Carolina, United States
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
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.
 

ALOC1911

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
70
Location
Troy, AL
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. ^^^^^^^^^
 
Top