Proposed legislation to make liable entities that create "gun-free zones."

All this does is make clear that whoever creates an obviously dangerous situation, by forcing the disarmament of innocent people entering, ("legitimate" coercion by the property owner) -- which they're fully entitled to do under the bill -- there's a consequence for that risky action. As there should be for creating such a self-evidently unsafe situation. And it only matters if the danger manifests, and some psychopath turns the hair parlor into a victim zone. If there's no assault, then there's no problem. Gun-o-phobes can sleep tight thinking the rest of us are just a bunch of paranoids. The bill merely addresses criminally misguided notions of safety...

Try thinking of this as the Luby's Massacre Act. Maybe that will help emphasize the blatant and profound fraud of proposing gun-free zones as safety nets. The heartless, insensitive, thoughtless perpetrators of defenseless victim zones should be ashamed of themselves.

This kind of thing should have been done after 911. If Virginia had had such a law, the death and injury toll at VTech probably would have been a lot lower.

Of course, Sarkozy won't like it, but fortunately, this is America, not France.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here's a profile of the woman who stopped the killing in the Colorado church. Good thing it wasn't a "gun-free zone."

[Afternoon update]

Here's someone else of whom Sarkozy would disapprove.

Here’s the thing. Gun control advocates love to say that actual “defensive shootings” are rare. True. The statistic they always leave out is how many violent crimes are prevented without a shot being fired as was the case here.

Clearly these were gang members — a group known for violence — who decided not to continue their thuggery when the store owner showed he was capable of fighting back. So, the punks moved on — no doubt to find an unarmed victim.

No doubt.

[One more update]

Apparently, the Colorado church shooting was a "hate crime."

Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."

But it was against Christians, so that's OK.

[Update a couple minutes later]

This from the story above is kind of appalling:

After that final posting, one of the other Web site users realizes what's happened and wrote, "Oh no. I just saw this on the news."

Another wrote, "Yes, please don't do it. You'd only make them into martyrs and yourself into a fanatical, hateful zealot, in the public opinion."

Yes, stupid public. It would be so unfair to think that.

[Early evening update]

How many lives did Jeanne Assam save?

...this is the folly of "gun-free zones". Lunatics looking to kill people either will attack at places for which they have some animus (as in the case of the church) or where they can find a lot of unarmed people (as in Omaha). They don't stop because someone puts up a sign designating a site as gun-free, any more than people stop taking drugs because a city puts up a sign that designates a neighborhood as a "drug-free zone", as in my own neighborhood.

All that sign does is prevent the Jeanne Assams from being able to defend the defenseless. That's all it does. It doesn't make anyone more secure or safe, and it has the potential to make a lot of people into victims.

After the Virginia Tech shooting, people asked whether a CCL holder could have made a difference once the shooting started. Jeanne Assam answered that question on Sunday.

I thought the Republican philosophy wasn't to go running to
court everytime something bad happens.

If a "Real" republican didn't like a store's policy they would
refuse to shop there and even encourage both of their friends
not to shop there.

Given that I'm not now, and have never been, a Republican ("real" or otherwise), this is yet another moronic comment from another (or perhaps the same) anonymous moron.

And no, no one is proposing to "go running to court every time something bad happens." But I don't know very many people, Republican or otherwise, who don't think that people shouldn't be held legally responsible for deliberate actions with clear and foreseeable tragic consequences.

And here, I thought Mr. Simberg's post was about a LEGISLATIVE process, not a JUDICIAL one.

Thanks for setting me straight, "".

I thought the Republican philosophy wasn't to go running to court everytime something bad happens.

First, encouraging the passing of legislation to ensure that those who ban guns are financially liable for the actions they take is not "running to court." Such legislation simply ensures that, if a business that is attended by the public wishes to ban guns from its property, it will make damn sure that it provides the proper security.

If the business want to make the decision to forbid firearms, then the business owner must take on the resposibility of ensuring the safety of its patrons by making them financially liable. This isn't exactly wandering away from conservative ideology. It's unfortunate the residents of Washington D.C. can't hold their local gov't financially liable for its inane handgun ban.

Second, this legislation wouldn't be necessary but for snarky, snot-nosed, pseudo-intellectuals, who have burdened this nation with thousands of gun laws aimed at ensuring that criminals are better armed than law-abiding citizens, and who honestly believe that criminals and sociopaths couldn't possibly bring a gun to a "gun free zone."

kayawanee,
that gun crimes committed by criminals will cease if legally owned guns are banned, is an idiot idea, proposed by...

This should legislation will send the insurance companies into fits of apoplexy. It was the insurance companies who told companies and businesses to post those signs telling patrons to not go packin'. With this change, it will be those same insurance companies paying out the money if someone gets shot because of those signs.

"And no, no one is proposing to "go running to court every time something bad happens." But I don't know very many people, Republican or otherwise, who don't think that people shouldn't be held legally responsible for deliberate actions with clear and foreseeable tragic consequences."

This is a bill that makes a business owner liable for a tort action
caused by a third party.

Given the GOP has spent years hammering on Tort Reform,
this would be a complete reversal of policy.

It's no different holding a business owner responsible for
a policy of banning guns then it is to hold a business owner
liable for failing to salt the parking lots.

Posted by Steve at December 11, 2007 10:19 AM

kayawanee, that gun crimes committed by criminals will cease if legally owned guns are banned, is an idiot idea, proposed by...

I agree. As I said, "...snarky, snot-nosed, pseudo-intellectuals..." Or, as you put it, idiots.

It was the insurance companies who told companies and businesses to post those signs telling patrons to not go packin'.

You know, it hadn't occurred to me that the reason for this epidemic of gun bans was the ins. co lawyers, but it makes a lot of sense. This law would go a long way in countering that trend.

I looked at both the AZ and GA state government websites - I could find neither piece of legislation.

Georgia's HB31 has nothing to do with a gun-free-zone, and ther doesn't appear to be any AZ HB2320.

Not saying that this is a definitive search, or that the idea is wrong - I just couldn't substantiate the linked claims that there is pending legislation.

Good idea, though...

It's no different holding a business owner responsible for
a policy of banning guns then it is to hold a business owner
liable for failing to salt the parking lots.

No, it no different than suing businesses that make "no salting of parking lots" signs. It is not adding to a business' liabilities in inaction, it is adding liability to a manifestly dangerous action taken by the business.

"no salting of parking lot" means the business will not protect the customers vehicles. A customer can still take matters into their own hands and salt the parking lot.

The legal distortions and perverse arguments that gun controllers make to keep us defenseless are amazing.

Try excercising your free will.

Try excercising your free speeech rights.

If a business won't let you bring a gun on
it's premises, try taking your business
elsewhere.

Try gettinga letter campaign going.

It's really sad to see Fervent "libertarians"
and Fervent republicans advocating
litigation as a solution to their ills.

Of course Robert Bork is suing for a tort
because he tripped on a podium, so perhaps
it's okay for republicans to sue for tort crimes.

It's not okay for little people to sue mcdonalds over coffee, but, it's okay for republicans to
sue over property owners excercising their
property rights.

I sense fear from anonymous concerning this legislation. It is either this legislation or citizens ignoring the gun-free-zone to defend themselves.

I sense fear from anonymous concerning this legislation.

Yes, it looks like hysteria.

Finally! Actual, honest to goodness, common-sense gun legislation!

If a business open to the public deprives me of my Second Amendment rights and it fails to provide security to fill in the gap in protection, then I ought to be able to sue it into bankruptcy.

David Summers gets it.

I like the Florida approach. Florida prohibits firearms in a few places, such as schools and bars and government buildings and places where guns are already banned by federal law, and allows them everywhere else. So "No Guns" signs on private property have no legal force: if mall employees learn that you have a gun they can ask you to leave but they can't have you arrested. I don't like the restrictions on carrying in bars and govt buildings, but it's a reasonable system overall. Businesses occasionally put up "No Guns" signs, but in most cases they eventually take them down, I assume because someone has brought the realities of FL law to their attention. Meanwhile there are signs all over the place warning of harsh jail terms for people who commit violent crimes with guns. These signs, unlike the stupid ones forbidding guns, seem like a good idea.