Owner liability for gun free zones

[cashflyer]

So you want your mall to be a gun free zone?
Fine. You assume liability for customer safety.


Gun-Free-Zone Liability --

"If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes."

This may be the most important pro-rights gun bill to come down in many years.

A version of the bill was first introduced in Arizona (HB2456 in 2002) by Rep. Randy Graf (R-6th), with considerable support (12 sponsors!).

In 2003, Rep. Graf re-introduced it in Arizona (HB 2320). The state of Georgia joined the effort to enact this important new legislation with HB31, introduced by Rep. Bobby Franklin (R-17th). At least two other states actively considered the bill.

The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act has excellent value even if it isn't enacted in its first years -- it is a just and common-sense bill that would help protect the public. Resisting its reasonable provisions requires taking the moral low ground -- that you have no right to defend yourself. A lot of very bad gun bills are planned, so it's critical to balance that with bills as positive as this one. Ask your legislators to at least look at the bill and support it. Basically, "If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes."

-------------------------------------------------------------

GUN-FREE-ZONE LIABILITY ACT

Talking Points & Bill Text

"If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes."

(NOTE: Copy of the proposed bill text follows.)


Originally introduced in Arizona as The Defenseless Victim Act of 2002, this bill recognizes that gun-free zones, recklessly made and typically with no alternative security provided, are known to be extremely dangerous.

We have seen this (when the bill was first introduced) in the Wakefield, Mass., slayings, the Luby's Massacre, and even the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, where pilots and passengers were defenseless, in the false name of security. Congress responded to that with the "Arm The Pilots" law.

The death toll from gun-free zones continues to mount, with the 2007 Virginia Tech slaughter of helpless students and faculty, and at a Christmastime massacre that year in an Omaha shopping mall. The mall had "no guns allowed" signs to keep out FBI-certified citizens with CCW permits. The murderer, as in all such cases, disobeyed the signs. The news media continues to suppress stories where armed individuals stop such mayhem. See for example, The Bias Against Guns, by John Lott, for numerous egregious examples. You can also read this eloquent gun-bias editorial online.

The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act basically says that, in public places, if you create a dangerous gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes. There is no cost or budget item associated with enacting this bill.

The idea that gun-free zones are safe is fraudulent.

It is a mythology perpetrated by anti-rights activists who can often be recognized by their beliefs that:

1 - self defense should be illegal,
2 - guns should be confiscated,
3 - no one but "authorities" should have guns,
4 - government can take care of you better than you can.

The anti-self-defense lobby would tell you to rely upon the police for your safety, but they always omit the inconvenient facts that:

1 - police have no legal duty to protect you;

2 - they routinely respond only after an event to pick up the pieces;

3 - when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

In the tragic homicides above
and countless others you see on TV,
the police don't draw their guns,
they draw chalk lines when you're gone.*

A person who would deny your right
or ability to self defense is as violent and
wrong as the person who assaults you.

Acting in self defense against a criminal assault is legally guaranteed in all 50 states and federally, as it should be. It is as old as the first written laws of civilization. Denying the fundamental right to self preservation is unjust, immoral, dangerous and should not be tolerated.

The notion that gun-free zones are safe is fraud perpetrated on the public:

a) Only innocent victims like you and me are affected. Armed criminals ignore no-guns signs and could care less -- they're laughing at you.

b) No alternate form of security is provided. You are knowingly and recklessly made vulnerable, while property management accepts no responsibility for your safety or their negligent behavior. The bill addresses only blatantly anti-gun-rights actions that would callously disarm you and ignore your plight.

c) Despite bias in news coverage and the fear-mongering left, privately held firearms have been repeatedly shown to deter and prevent crime in one scholarly study after another (detailed at great length in Armed, by Kleck and Kates). Since the nation's inception we have known and embraced the freedom-giving truth that guns protect the innocent, and that this is good.

d) Denial of your civil rights under color of law is a federal offense under 18 USC ?241 and 18 USC ? 242:

The Gist: Anyone who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, custom or regulation, willfully deprives any person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be fined, or imprisoned for up to one year, or both.

If bodily injury results, or if the violation includes the use or attempted or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire, the prison term rises to up to ten years. If death results, or if such acts include kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, attempted aggravated sexual assault, or an attempt to kill, the violator may be fined, imprisoned for any term of years up to life, or put to death.


Initial reactions to the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act have been highly supportive by knowledgeable people in the gun-rights movement. It shows all the signs of becoming a major national rallying point. This could turn into one of the key gun issues of the decade (literally, the right to bear arms), especially if terrorist attacks continue and defenseless innocent victims are slaughtered.

The public-opinion value alone, forcing the other side to support helplessness and victimization, are worth the effort. Now is a good time to bring this issue into the spotlight.

The bill was first introduced as HB2456, sponsored by a dozen representatives, in the 45th session in Arizona (2002). The legislators say it gives them something to sink their teeth into. Give your legislators something this good -- ask them to introduce the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act in your state, for all the right reasons.

Some additional observations appear after the following bill text.

This is good law, supportive of our fundamental rights,
a deterrent to criminals who would perpetrate attacks,
a winner in the publicity battle over gun rights,
and it places responsibility squarely on those
who would cause harm by their direct actions.

It deserves to be enacted.

Please give it your support.

Ask your representatives to introduce and vote for
the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act.

Sincerely,
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Scottsdale, AZ
602-996-4020

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

[cashflyer]

Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status

Thursday, December 06, 2007

By John R. Lott, Jr.

AP

Robert Hawkins

The horrible tragedy at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb. received a lot of attention Wednesday and Thursday. It should have. Eight people were killed, and five were wounded.

A Google news search using the phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven?t heard about this tragedy.

But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.

Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn?t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.

The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.

Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."

There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.

When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost 8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven?t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.

Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn?t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn?t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.

People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.

All these attacks ? indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed ? happened in gun-free zones.

In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.

The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this piece draws, and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.

[frogger]

Good posts.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

What if the mall wants to host a sporting goods store? Can I buy guns there? How 'bout ammo?

[id10t]

Porsche-O-Phile - there was a knife store in our local mall many moons ago. I bought a rather large tanto style knife, and between the store and my walk up thru the hall to the door and out to my truck I ended up with a plain clothes security guy, a plain clothes cop, 2 uniformed security guys, and I was greeted at the door by a sherrif's deputy with his squad car lights going and his pistol out.

Went thru hell for 10 minutes explaining that I had *just* bought the thing, showed my reciept, etc. Still got me searched, called in, etc.

[HardDrive]

[Rick Lee]

The proposed law leaves out a lot of places that the state, not the business owner, requires to be gun-free zones. In most CCW states, you cannot carry in a business that serves alcohol for on-premise consumption. That means just about all but fast food restaurants in VA. I ignore this law and just don't drink when I carry. Never once heard of a CCW'er misusing a gun in VA. If they can carry anywhere else, why not in restaurants?

[legion]

Too bad such a law doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting called (much less passed) in Illinois.

[svandamme]

i'm not going to go into any debate about it ,because i know you gun nuts are not going to change the point of view anyway

but this just doesn't make sense one way or another
if it's a gun free zone, then any shooting done and an damage done by a shooter
is not because the zone is gun free, but because the rules were broken, because somebody came in and took away the "free" part of "gun free zone" because the system, society failed (having plenty of other guns to start returning fire after a nutcase starts shooting is to late , you want to prevent the shooter from even getting out a gun in the first place)

"let's not fix the source of the problem, let's tinker with everything else"

and to be clear, the source of the problem is quite easy to define

crazy people
+
guns
= source of your problem

same goes for the other problem, criminal firearm offenses

criminals
+
guns
= source of that problem
take either part of that sum out ,and the problem is gone



this law just don't add up
why not sue the police, or the state, everytime somebody get's shot?

makes about as much sense to do as anything, at least if the idea is to keep looking for other ways to not put responsibility with the guy who pulled the trigger...
but i guess that doesn't go down well with the american mindset, there HAS to be somebody who pays for it, and since these nutcase shooters, usually end up dead in the ordeal, there isn't , so let's just blame whoever else you can...

[Jeff Higgins]

Unless the gun free zone is mandated by law (court houses, schools, etc.) I just ignore it. Even those designated by law I pretty much ignore. In the case of private property, where the rules do not carry the weight of law, all they can legally do if they find out is ask you to leave that private property. They cannot detain you. So, to me, it is a non-issue. I've never been "made"; I carry discreetly enough (that's the law, too) that I never will be. The only indication that I have a gun will be when I start using it. At that point, their rules will be quite meaningless to me, and those with and around me.

[teenerted1]

Stijn
thats right you dont get the point....

the point is that if you make a place a "Gun free zone" and someone, nut job or not, violates this not only is the nut job to be held responsible but so is the party that designated the place a "Gun free zone" responsible for your safety too.

and if they fail in keeping the place "gun free" they have just violated their own policy by allowing a gun inside the zone and must pay the piper for failing to enforce their own policy.

it is a personal defense issue, and a liablilty issue.
if you cant provide for my safety, then i have the right to ensure myself that i will be safe.
dont make a place GUN FREE if you cant insure it will be gun free, nut jobs included.

[svandamme]

then what about airports and airplane travel?

same thing, yet nobody in decades has ever complained about that, yet many have died in terrorist hijacks...

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by svandamme

then what about airports and airplane travel?

same thing, yet nobody in decades has ever complained about that, yet many have died in terrorist hijacks...

And many airlines have been sued for it too. But....I'm not aware of anyone getting a gun through an airport metal detector in recent memory. And at least airports actually make an effort to keep themselves gun-free. A cardboard sign on the door of a business is not what I call a real effort.

[skipdup]

I love it. It just makes sense.

[teenerted1]

Originally Posted by svandamme

then what about airports and airplane travel?

same thing, yet nobody in decades has ever complained about that, yet many have died in terrorist hijacks...

really nobody complains about terrorists? are you serious?

they do have real security forces and police in airports. and there are pretty serious consequences if you try to get thru.

haven't you heard about all the lawsuits in the books and in the courts right now already taking the terrorist, banks that fund terror groups, and security forces to task for not stopping the terrorists?

but your local mall might have a few rent a cops and patrol car cruising the parking lot.

[old man neri]

Fascinating.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by teenerted1

Stijn
thats right you dont get the point....

if only that would sink in...

This law has no chance in most states, not a bad idea though

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by svandamme

then what about airports and airplane travel?

same thing, yet nobody in decades has ever complained about that, yet many have died in terrorist hijacks...

Have you heard of the Airline Pan Am? It was THE world ariline for a long long time. Do you know why they don't exist anymore?

I'll give you a clue, 30 students from my college died in a terrorist bombing. The families of those students and every other passenger sued Pan Am out of existence.

[slakjaw]

I thought the guy from catch me if you can put them out with all of his forged checks.