Liability ACT

[wrag]

This is something I find extremely interesting!

It SEEMS an effort is being made to hold the MAKERS of certain laws libel for creating those laws?

Not sure if it's doable but...............

http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

Efforts have been made to try to pass this law or one very like it in more then 1 state.

Not sure what I think of it yet.

I mean if the Lawmakers IS held accountable WHO PAYS?

Me and you with our taxes OR the Lawmaker?

OOPS adding the below as opinion............

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/content/EEAZVkVyyEUewwANOG.html

[Hornet33]

I've been following this for awhile and what it boils down to is this.

Example: Wrag owns his own public buisness and he decides that he doesn't want any guns on his property or in his store so he puts up a sign declaring it a "Gun Free Zone". As the owner of the property that is his right to do so and by declaring it a gun free zone that makes it illegal for anyone to bring a gun onto the property or in the store. He has the right to press charges on anyone he finds carrying a gun on his property or in his store.

However by doing so he has taken away the right for legal gun owners who have a valid carry permit from having their legal firearms on that property even though it is open to the general public.

So if I as a legal gun owner with a valid permit to carry goes to Wrags store and I have to leave my gun in my truck to enter his store if something happens, like the place is robbed and I'm shot in the process, this law would allow me to hold Wrag responsible for any damages that occured to me because he didn't allow me to carry my firearm in his store to defend myself.

Now in the case of a public school it would be the city and the local school board responsible.

90% of all gun free zones are private property. Malls, stores and stuff like that. The lawmakers i.e. elected officials didn't pass any laws to make those private places gun free zones, the owners of those places did all on thier own. This law if passed would mearly make them liable for failing to provide adequate security to maintain their gun free zone and allow citizens that wish to carry a legal firearm, but denied to do so because it's a gun free zone, to seek compensation from the owners of said gun free zone.


This law makes perfect sense and I hope it gets passed someday. If the owners of these places are going to deny me of my right to carry a gun and I end up getting hurt because of it, then they should be held accountable.

[Chairboy]

Where would courthouses, both local and federal, be with this I wonder?

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Where would courthouses, both local and federal, be with this I wonder?

They would be affected the same way politicians are by the "do not call list"

shamus

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Where would courthouses, both local and federal, be with this I wonder?

Big differance with those types of places, there you have armed security and everyone has to pass through metal detectors and stuff just to get in the door. They have taken appropriate steps to ensure everyones safety in those buildings. Not so at the local mall.

Can you imagine if everyone had to go through security screening at the local mall? It would never happen because they would loose way to much buisness if they tried so they just declare it a gun free zone and expect that to work, but as we've all seen here lately it doesn't.

That's what the gun free liability act is ment to address. If you want a gun free zone then you are expected to take all the appropriate measures to ensure that no one can enter with a gun, i.e. metal detectors, screen everyone, have armed security standing by. If you don't then you become liable for anything that happens in your gun free zone.

It's common sense, that's why many people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea.