Gun-free-zone Liability Act Of 2002

Jeff Thomas · January 1, 2002, 02:40 PM

Noted author and gun law expert Alan Korwin (see www.gunlaws.com ) has kindly offered his expertise by penning some important proposed legislation in the great state of Arizona. Legislation such as this could save many lives, by exposing the murderous fraud of so-called "Gun Free Zones", and by ensuring that businesses and governmental agencies recognize the liability they create with fraudulent victim disarmament zones.

This legislation is scheduled for the upcoming Arizona legislative calendar, and the support behind this bill is growing larger every day ... it is creating a great deal of excitement in AZ.

As we consider this important legislation, let's also remember Louis (Sandy) Javelle, murdered on December 26, 2000 at Edgewater Technology in Wakefield, MA. Sandy was the 3rd victim of lunatic Michael McDermott, killed while he attempted to stop that bloodbath. Sandy was also an FFL, and had a NH permit to carry ... but the laws of MA prevented him from defending his own life, as well as the lives of his coworkers. Those Massachusetts' laws did nothing to prevent the carnage that day, but rather helped murder Sandy and his associates.

It is time for the truth to be told. So-called "gun-free zones" are state-sanctioned victim disarmament zones, and only abet murder and assault.

Please consider this legislation closely. And, please encourage your own state legislators to sponsor such a bill.

Regards from AZ. Happy New Year!

Quote:

GUN-FREE-ZONE LIABILITY ACT OF 2002

Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right or ability to self defense.

REFERENCE TITLE: Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act

State of Arizona
(sponsoring house)
Forty-Fifth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2002

__.B. _____

Introduced by ________________________

AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding new section 13-3117:

A.R.S. §13-3117. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.

A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.

B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12 (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14 (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Tresspass and Burglary), Chapter 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related Offenses) and Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order).

C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to possess firearms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.

TimW · January 1, 2002, 02:52 PM

The simple answer is:

Don't shop there.

If I invite you to my home and ask that you leave your gun in the car, am I liable for any injury you might sustain if there were a home invasion?

Private property rights prevail, imho. What you are doing is FORCING, via Government Coercion, a retailer or business to assume liability. It's still government coercion. That's what we have tort law for....

TimW
Phoenix

www.brassroots.org

Marko Kloos · January 1, 2002, 03:04 PM

I don't agree with this piece of legislation. It would violate the property rights of business owners who choose to ban firearms from their property. Foolish as that may be, they have the right to do so on their property. As a consumer, I have equal right to vote with my dollars and not shop there.

So we want to use the guns of the State (which we rant against when they're used against us), and use them to force the Mini-Mart owner down the corner to let us come onto his property armed against his will?

Jeff Thomas · January 1, 2002, 03:25 PM

Tim, the law doesn't affect your home. It affects governmental agencies and businesses open to the public.

It doesn't affect private property rights for those businesses, because they can still impose "gun-free zones" on their customers and employees. The law simply spotlights the liability that already would exist if the case was pursued by an aggressive trial attorney, suing on behalf of an injured person or the estate of a murdered victim.

Businesses and governmental agencies that establish "gun-free zones" are foisting a murderous fraud upon the public. These are not honest, freely-entered contracts regarding ingress and egress ... these are stores that announce "No Weapons Allowed!", and yet fail to install even the most basic replacement security. They defraud innocent men, women and children into believing they are somehow safer in such areas ... when the truth, as you and I both know, is that these zones are crime magnets, which cravenly fool their victims into a false sense of complacency. Businesses that defraud their customers and employees should be put on notice that the rest of society recognizes their liability, and will hold them accountable for their actions.

This private property concern is, frankly, overstated, and falsely protects the right to defaud innocent people. Read the bill again ... it forces business owners to do nothing more than recognize the liability they themselves created. Between the two ... I'm not comfortable supporting the rights of businesses to defraud and endanger the lives of their employees and customers.

Tim, if you don't like this bill, then I would respectfully request that you draft a better bill, which will defend innocent life and expose the fraud of "gun-free zones".

I do know this ... we can either get in pi$$ing matches with each other over how many angels dance on the head of this pin, or we can attack the true enemies of freedom. Which makes more sense?

Regards from AZ

Thairlar · January 1, 2002, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Sandy was also an FFL, and had a NH permit to carry ... but the laws of MA prevented him from defending his own life, as well as the lives of his coworkers. Those Massachusetts' laws did nothing to prevent the carnage that day, but rather helped murder Sandy and his associates.

Okay, can you explain to me how this is so? While the events in Wakefield were undeniably tragic, there are laws in place to provide for out of state licenses. Do you know if he had applied for one and was denied, or the issuance of the license were somehow delayed? If not, how are Massachusetts laws at fault? If he were legally able to carry but it was corporate policy that kept him disarmed, there could well be a good case made against the company under existing laws. If he chose not to apply for one and to travel to work every day unarmed, that was his decision and the fact he was unarmed was his choice.

Do I think there should be reciprocity between MA and NH. Absolutely. In fact, legislation has passed in NH and ME to allow reciprocity as soon as MA legiscritters get off their posteriors and do the same IIRC. However, for now if I want to go to NH and carry legally, I have to apply for a NH out of state permit. Same goes for ME.

Marko Kloos · January 1, 2002, 03:41 PM

Quote:

I do know this ... we can either get in pi$$ing matches with each other over how many angels dance on the head of this pin, or we can attack the true enemies of freedom.

We don't preserve freedom by taking it away from others at gunpoint, and the right to your own property (including yourself) is the most basic freedom.

People have the right to tell me that I may not carry on their property. I have the right to not do business with them. Unless somebody is forcing me at gunpoint to patronize their business, I choose for myself whether a gallon of milk at 2 a.m. is worth the risk of going unarmed. My decision, not yours or the government's.

Jeff Thomas · January 1, 2002, 03:43 PM

MA is not a shall-issue state. I don't know Sandy's life history. Do you find it odd that someone would have trouble legally carrying a firearm for self defense in MA? Really?

The link is now dead, but here is a summary of Sandy's situation:

Quote:

http://www.shooters.com/features/newsline_03-01.html
BLOOD ON THE HANDS OF MASS LEGISLATORS
March 19, 2001, NEW HAMPSHIRE: After my recent mailing that was sent to NH legislators and posted on Shooters.com's Newsline page, I have been questioned on the fact that one of the victims of the Wakefield Tragedy had a permit to carry in NH. I had heard about it but hadn't found anything on the Internet about it. After receiving several e-mails, I decided to put another effort into finding something.
What I found was blood on the hands of Massachusetts Legislators. Not only did Louis Javelle have a permit to carry in NH, but he also had a Federal Firearms License! David Bergquist of Temple, N.H. was a friend of Louis "Sandy" Javelle and wrote a letter to the Boston Herald on January 11th, 2001. In that letter he states that "Sandy held both a federal firearms license and a permit to carry a handgun in New Hampshire. Ironically, the gun laws in Massachusetts prevented him from carrying a concealed handgun. But these same laws did not prevent Michael McDermott from obtaining illegal firearms."

These laws never do prevent a criminal from obtaining and using a firearm in any crime. Because Mr. Javelle was an honest citizen, He did not carry a firearm in Massachusetts and now he is dead. According to Mr. Berquist "When the rampage started, Sandy told co-workers to lock the door behind him and barricade it. He then confronted McDermott and became the third victim."

Obviously this man did not need a firearm to be a hero, but if the legislators of Massachusetts had allowed him to carry one, He may have been a living hero who may have been able to save several lives including his own. Massachusetts would not recognize the fact that Mr. Javelle had a NH permit to carry, but they also ignored the fact that Mr. Javelle had a Federal Firearms Permit. Their laws would still not allow him to carry in Massachusetts. What a price to pay!

This should not surprise anyone. In a state where the laws are so strict that when children go to the state capitol building to learn the History of Boston, they see a musket on the wall, a musket that helped to free this country from England, and on that musket, a trigger lock!

What are they teaching their children?

For every child that gets accidentally hurt by a firearm, how many have been saved?

How many more would have died if Joel Myrick, Principal of the Mississippi High School where Luke Woodham opened fire, hadn't stopped him with a firearm he had in his truck at school? Joel Myrick is a criminal. He broke federal law by having a firearm in his vehicle at school. Now tell that to the parents of the children that he saved. Luke Woodham was on his way to the Pearl Mississippi Junior High when Mr. Myrick stopped him. Tell the parent of every child at Pearl Junior High that Joel Myrick is a criminal, and see what kind of response you get!

Mr. Joel Myrick is a living Hero, Louis "Sandy" Javelle is not.

AND, SEE:

http://brownalumnimagazine.com/storydetail.cfm?ID=111

Regards from AZ

Jeff Thomas · January 1, 2002, 03:49 PM

lendringser, exactly what freedom have we taken away from property owners? Please specify, because I can't lay my finger on that section of the bill.

Thank you.

Regards from AZ

Zander · January 1, 2002, 04:02 PM

Quote:

It would violate the property rights of business owners who choose to ban firearms from their property.

It would do no such thing.

It would highlight the already existing liability of the property owner.

It would ensure that citizens are not deprived of their RKBA, and thus their means to self-defense, without those citizens having recourse in a civil court.

The legislation simply says:

If you choose to deprive a citizen of his RKBA on your property, your security better be mighty tight.

This is model legislation...I'd like to see it adopted on a national basis.

Thairlar · January 1, 2002, 04:04 PM

Quote:

MA is not a shall-issue state. I don't know Sandy's life history. Do you find it odd that someone would have trouble legally carrying a firearm for self defense in MA? Really?

I know very well that MA is a may issue state. As to how hard it is to get a license here, it all depends on whether you're a resident or not. If you're a resident, your chief controls your fate. Some chiefs are shall issue, some give you a run around. I don't know how hard it is to receive a non-resident license, as I said. I have no problem saying that every time someone is denied protection and is harmed because of discretionary licensing there is blood on the hands of the MA legislators and voters who support it. However, without knowing if he tried to get one and was denied, you are just using it as an emotional appeal with no facts to back it up.

I believe there are some NH members who have non-resident MA licenses. Perhaps they can shed some light on how difficult it is to obtain one.

Jeff Thomas · January 1, 2002, 04:18 PM

Quote:

"... without knowing if he tried to get one and was denied, you are just using it as an emotional appeal with no facts to back it up." Thairlar

You know, I've been watching how we've had our heads kicked in for the last decade, and you know what? I've personally made a decision. Call me foolish, but I think that RKBA supporters are more intelligent than gun bigots, and, that being the case, I think we can be at least as shrewd as those anti-self defense leftist scum.

Am I willing to use emotional appeals to help average Americans get the friggin' point? You bet your sweet a$$ I am.

Now, having said that, I have also called and personally spoken with one of Sandy's friends. He assured me that Sandy would have been well capable of defending his own life as well as his coworkers, but for the murderous interference of MA legislators.

So, please do some research on your own, and feel free to pick apart my emotional pleas to recognize the RKBA. But, to my mind, we owe no quarter to gun bigots. And, we'll be smart to use some of the marketing tactics they have unabashedly used against us ... emotional arguments that use real people to graphically illustrate the importance of the RKBA, incremental compromise to destroy their anti-self defense positions, etc. Some may not like these tactics ... fine. Choose your own. We can't agree on a caliber, so why would we think we could agree on tactics to defend freedom?

Regards from AZ

Thairlar · January 1, 2002, 04:39 PM

I have no problem with emotional appeals that are backed up by facts. That's one of the impressive things about the pro gun side. We stick to the facts. If you stick to facts then you can't get stymied in a debate. If a debate consists entirely of emotional appeals with no facts to back them up, then the argument is fairly easy to pick apart. If you make a point in a debate and your opponent asks for your proof, it's up to you to have the proof to back it up. It's not up to your opponent to disprove it if you have no proof.

As I said, prove to me that Sandy applied for a non-resident LTC and was denied and I will gladly accept that the blame for it lays with the Commonwealth.

BTW, I do agree that anyone limiting the RKBA should be liable for damages if someone couldn't defend themselves. I think there are probably current laws in most states that can be used to hold them liable without having to pass additional legislation.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with an emotional argument if you have the facts to back it up. Going into a debate without facts is like going into an avoidable dangerous situation unarmed.

Jeff Thomas · January 1, 2002, 04:51 PM

Thairlar, thank you for your support.

This law is necessary because attorneys, insurance agents, risk managers and business executives have clearly come to believe that their safest course is to simply "prohibit" weapons on the premises. However, they know very well that their anemic policies do nothing to truly prevent criminal violence, or eliminate weapons ... however, they do defraud their customers and employees into a false and deadly sense of security.

Trial lawyers are generally a liberal crowd, apparently more inclined to believe the criminal had a bad childhood, than to recognize the fraud of "gun-free zones". There may be many ways to skin this cat, but the proposed bill is an important step in this process. And, it is important to recognize what leftists have known for a long time ... winning political battles is often a multi-front war. Murderous "gun-free zones" and the mayhem they generate can be reduced by legislation, law suits, consumer boycotts and education programs.

This bill is timely, fair, and the right solution to a vexing problem.

Regards from AZ

cbjessee@NH · January 1, 2002, 05:54 PM

As I recall, but only from the poor media coverage on the event, the Wakefield company had a policy prohibiting weapons on the property. The NH victem was said to have been an avid hunter and qualified NRA instructor. I never did find out if he did indeed have a Massachusetts LTC-A permit, required to carry a concealed firearm. Either way, MA law permits businesses to prohibit employees from carrying weapons. Hence, it is very true that MA laws may have prevented a law-abiding NH resident from defending his life against another employee who broke the rules. I guess the shooter didn't figure getting dismissed for breaking company rules was much of an added deterent to life in jail for premeditated murder.

It's actually easier for us NH residents to get a non-resident MA CCW permit than MA residents, as the approval comes through the State Police Superintendent rather than by the local Chief of Police approval required for MA residents. It's a roaring pain to get photos, FBI fingerprints, home state criminal records check and to fill out the forms with just the right wording for All Legal Purposes (including self-defense), but it is otherwise much easier for non-residents - even if more expensive at $50/year.

I work in a building once used by a Massachusetts university, but that is now rented out for commercial purposes. By MA law, no firearms are permitted on school property. This, by advice from a knowledgable MA lawyer, includes my building, even though there is no "school" on premisis. One should never make self-incriminating statements on forums and such, but suffice it to say that our planned January move to new offices will give me better options.

BRET

Jeff Thomas · January 1, 2002, 06:20 PM

Another thing to remember in this debate ... we're not only talking about the lives of RKBA supporters, but also the people those folks could defend. If Sandy Javelle had been permitted to carry his safety rescue tool of choice, how many lives would have been saved?

Regards from AZ

Waitone · January 1, 2002, 07:14 PM

I was lurking on the GOA site IIRC and clicked on the summary of Washington legislation pending re: RKBA. I was struck by two things: 1>anti's had many, many legislative proposals designed to slice away piece by piece the Second Amendment. 2>pro-second amendment legislation was numerically inferior by a wide margin, but the proposals all struck at the root of the anti's position.

While the pro-2's loft valuable legislation, they simply do not have the harassment factor as high as the anti-2's legislation. The anti-2 movement is just eat-up with positional inconsistencies. I would like to see legislation proffered which highlights those inconsistencies.

I think it entirely appropriate to adopt a strategy of tangling the anti-2's up in their own underwear. The proposal on this forum is a good start but could go further if supported with additional provisions. A good start could be legislation which would clearly delineate the government's (you pick which level) lack of responsibility to protect the jurisdiction's citizens.

I do question if it is appropriate for the govt to require a private property owner to permit an armed person access. If a retail establishment keeps its facilities in a condition in which a customer injures himself, the retail owner is clearly responsible for damages. It would logically (yea, I know; logic is not normative) to hold that same retail owner liable for damages suffered by a customer if the customer is injured in an event in which the retail owner forbid the customer the means of protecting himself. That is not the same as the government saying the retail owner must admit armed customers. It is only reasonable to permit an injured customer legal recourse should something unfortunate happen.

Good start, keep us posted.

ds1973 · January 1, 2002, 07:48 PM

It's funny how the anti gunners will selectively use "property rights" to ban firearms from malls and parks and such, but then will confiscate your property to pay for their imaginary rights like health care and education.

The right to property is meaningless without the right to life and the right to life is meaningless if you are not allowed to defend that right.

To all you touting "property rights" please explain to me how someone carrying a concealed firearm onto your precious property is violating your property rights?

A right is a freedom to action. The right to property is the right to earn, keep, and dispose of said property as you see fit.

The right to life is the right to self-generating, self-sustaining action.

No rights are violated if a CCW holder walks into my house because I've invited him for dinner, regardless of whether or not I know he is carrying. He is not destroying my property, he is not threatening my life. Similarly, if I walk into a mall to shop carrying my firearm concealed, I have violated no ones rights. If I draw my gun and shoot a cash register, THEN I have destroyed propery and should be held liable for the cost of the damage.

You'd better be VERY careful how you go about defining "property rights".

Thairlar · January 1, 2002, 08:06 PM

You have a right to allow or disallow whatever you want on your property. I can ask you to leave for any reason, including saying a word. Any word. I could ban the word "it" on my property and be well within my rights. If you say "it" you must leave. Same goes with allowing guns or anything else on my property. Why can restaurants have dress codes? It's their property. They can allow or disallow people access based on their dress. Would I ban guns on my property? No. It's not up to anyone to decide what someone does with their property though.

Jeff Thomas · January 1, 2002, 09:29 PM

I agree, as does the author of the bill. This proposed legislation does not outlaw "gun-free zones" in any way whatsoever.

The bill simply says that if the "gun-free zone" in a business or governmental agency contributes to mayhem, then you may be liable for damages. What could be wrong with that concept?

And, why do some people read this bill and translate it into a prohibition against "gun-free zones"? The language is clear and straightforward.

Regards from AZ

Dennis · January 1, 2002, 09:53 PM

I'm with ya, Jeff! Big time!

**tyme** · January 2, 2002, 09:49 AM

Maybe if the title was something PC it would pass...

"Mass murder prevention act of 2002"

"Leverage of the people's rights to protect businesses and offices act of 2002"

"Life and property protection act of 2002"

CoyDog · January 2, 2002, 11:08 AM

Jeff, this bill is an excellent idea. It's about time we run some offense instead of playing perpetual defense.

The argument that property rights are somehow diminished is off the mark. This bill is analogous to saying that if you ban winter coats on your property and a de-coated person subsequently freezes to death, you will bear some responsibility for it.

CoyDog

Jeff Thomas · January 2, 2002, 01:15 PM

Alan Korwin writes:

Very interesting dialog you have going on the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act of 2002. Let me make a few points and a correction or two.

1. It's critically important that pro-rights individuals put forth bills to keep the unfriendlies off balance and busy swatting at all the flies (like they do to us so effectively). If you have a gripe with a pro-rights proposal, don't be divisive or waste time debating, draft a different bill yourself (or with help) and get it introduced. Don't be a pro-rights obstacle. Be a pro-rights enabler. Force the antis into defensiveness. If you want some ideas for outrageous affronts to the anti-rights crowd, check out Sunshine Gun Laws, under Position Papers at http://www.gunlaws.com.

2. Despite what some people are saying, property rights are UNAFFECTED by the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act. Read it and see, please (posted at the end). Gun-free zones are allowed, entirely at property owner's free discretion, property rights remain 100% intact. Keep guns, ban guns, allow only 9mm, I don't care, and the law ignores you on this. Maybe we should write in a guarantee for property owners to ban guns, would that make you feel better? It would be easy enough to do.

3. If you have a problem with holding people accountable for death and mayhem they cause by enabling crime, then of course you'll be against the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act. That's the position I expect anti-rights bigots to take. Bring 'em on. If nothing happens, i.e., the bigots are correct and gun-free zones are pleasant, safe and crime free, then the bill has ZERO affect on anything. Zero, nada, zip. Personally, I think that facet is particularly edifying. Sort of like, what harm could it do?

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

5. After years of being forced to defend assault, deadly capacity, accessibility and so on, it's time for us to have the moral high ground for a change. Think about what the antis have to sound like to say they don't want any liability for murdered victims they had disarmed.

6. Also note that wholly private property like your home or ranch are exempt from the bill. ONLY public property or property open to the public is affected. There is a clear difference (well, the anarchists don't agree, but you can't please everyone) between truly private property (like your home) and a place that is open to the public and privately run, like a mall, or K-Mart. They can still ban guns remember, and you can still go shop elsewhere.

7. If you fight this ingenious, publicity-winning, popular rallying point on some hairline fracture you think you've found, instead of attacking some hellatious piece of profligate gross infringement that abounds out there, may I suggest you have your priorities in the wrong place, or at least you should consider again how best to spend your time.

Thanks for this chance to comment.

Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
[email protected]
602-996-4020
------------------------------------------

This is good law, supportive of our fundamental rights, a deterrent to those who would perpetrate crimes, and places responsibility squarely on those who would cause us harm by their direct actions. It deserves to be enacted.
Please give it your support.

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

GUN-FREE-ZONE LIABILITY ACT OF 2002

Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right or ability to self defense.

REFERENCE TITLE: Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act

State of Arizona
(sponsoring house)
Forty-Fifth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2002

__.B. _____

Introduced by ________________________

AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding new section 13-3117:

A.R.S. §13-3117. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.

A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.

B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12 (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14 (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Tresspass and Burglary), Chapter 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related Offenses) and Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order).

C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to possess firearms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.

Jeff Thomas · January 2, 2002, 01:38 PM

Alan Korwin writes:

One final point, an afterthought: CRIMINALS ARE NEVER BANNED by gun-free zones, right? They walk past the signs with impunity, it does NOTHING at all to deter them in any way. You cannot name a single murder that was prevented by a no-guns-allowed sign. Gun-free zones are just one more piece of outrageous injustice and sick fraud perpetrated by remorseless anti-rights tyrants and our public servants.

RickD · January 2, 2002, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone,

Sounds like government and private property. A family pizza joint finds the owners living at the shop 7am to 11pm more than they do at home. It IS their private property.

We in Arizona have been debating this with Alan Korwin and a couple dozen others via e-mail over the last two weeks.

If they want to make it government only, I could support it. But it is dangerous in its current form (albeit, a real good debate vehicle that I will use when the time comes).

Alan attempts to use a contemporary civil rights view on this. Others (on the other side of this issue) take a more classic individual rights view. My private property is my private property. Nobody is forcing me to go to anti-gun Joe's Pizza shop.

The problem is that Alan's law attempts to increase one person's rights (self defense) by allowing government to diminish another's (private property).

For those interested, read Bovard's "Freedom In Chains."

He talks about the 1930's vintage concept of rights pushed by self-admitted fascists and marxists (and FDR). They spoke of "the right to be free from fear and free from want." Cutely and self-servingly, they dubbed them so-called "positive rights" while the old-fashioned natural rights were dubbed by the statists as "negative rights." I don't suppose you consider your rights to be negative do you? It is along the same lines as Hamilton calling himself a "Federalist" and dubbing Patrick Henry and "anti-federalist" when, in fact, it was the other way around. But, hey, it stuck, even with us. It pays to advertise; look how many of us call our AR-15s an "assault weapon."

Anywaze, "positive rights" required the action of government. That is, they required government to reduce the rights of one person to give to another person. No longer could a pizza shop owner contract how much money he can pay his workers. The government dictated that the lowest wage allowable in Los Angeles is also the lowest wage allowable in the poorest county of Mississippi.

And so on.

Either you believe in private property or you don't. Either you believe in the freedom to associate (or not to associate) or you don't.

That is not to say that Alan's bill won't be educational. When I get involved with politics, it is to use the issue as an educational tool. This will be fun.

Rick

January 1, 2002, 03:04 PM	#3
Marko Kloos Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2000 Location: Enfield, NH Posts: 5,521	I don't agree with this piece of legislation. It would violate the property rights of business owners who choose to ban firearms from their property. Foolish as that may be, they have the right to do so on their property. As a consumer, I have equal right to vote with my dollars and not shop there. So we want to use the guns of the State (which we rant against when they're used against us), and use them to force the Mini-Mart owner down the corner to let us come onto his property armed against his will? __________________ "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." --A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher the munchkin wrangler. Last edited by Marko Kloos; January 1, 2002 at 03:24 PM.

January 1, 2002, 03:25 PM	#4
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	Tim, the law doesn't affect your home. It affects governmental agencies and businesses open to the public. It doesn't affect private property rights for those businesses, because they can still impose "gun-free zones" on their customers and employees. The law simply spotlights the liability that already would exist if the case was pursued by an aggressive trial attorney, suing on behalf of an injured person or the estate of a murdered victim. Businesses and governmental agencies that establish "gun-free zones" are foisting a murderous fraud upon the public. These are not honest, freely-entered contracts regarding ingress and egress ... these are stores that announce "No Weapons Allowed!", and yet fail to install even the most basic replacement security. They defraud innocent men, women and children into believing they are somehow safer in such areas ... when the truth, as you and I both know, is that these zones are crime magnets, which cravenly fool their victims into a false sense of complacency. Businesses that defraud their customers and employees should be put on notice that the rest of society recognizes their liability, and will hold them accountable for their actions. This private property concern is, frankly, overstated, and falsely protects the right to defaud innocent people. Read the bill again ... it forces business owners to do nothing more than recognize the liability they themselves created. Between the two ... I'm not comfortable supporting the rights of businesses to defraud and endanger the lives of their employees and customers. Tim, if you don't like this bill, then I would respectfully request that you draft a better bill, which will defend innocent life and expose the fraud of "gun-free zones". I do know this ... we can either get in pi$$ing matches with each other over how many angels dance on the head of this pin, or we can attack the true enemies of freedom. Which makes more sense? Regards from AZ __________________ I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.

January 1, 2002, 03:49 PM	#8
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	lendringser, exactly what freedom have we taken away from property owners? Please specify, because I can't lay my finger on that section of the bill. Thank you. Regards from AZ __________________ I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.

January 1, 2002, 04:51 PM	#13
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	Thairlar, thank you for your support. This law is necessary because attorneys, insurance agents, risk managers and business executives have clearly come to believe that their safest course is to simply "prohibit" weapons on the premises. However, they know very well that their anemic policies do nothing to truly prevent criminal violence, or eliminate weapons ... however, they do defraud their customers and employees into a false and deadly sense of security. Trial lawyers are generally a liberal crowd, apparently more inclined to believe the criminal had a bad childhood, than to recognize the fraud of "gun-free zones". There may be many ways to skin this cat, but the proposed bill is an important step in this process. And, it is important to recognize what leftists have known for a long time ... winning political battles is often a multi-front war. Murderous "gun-free zones" and the mayhem they generate can be reduced by legislation, law suits, consumer boycotts and education programs. This bill is timely, fair, and the right solution to a vexing problem. Regards from AZ __________________ I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.

January 1, 2002, 06:20 PM	#15
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	Another thing to remember in this debate ... we're not only talking about the lives of RKBA supporters, but also the people those folks could defend. If Sandy Javelle had been permitted to carry his safety rescue tool of choice, how many lives would have been saved? Regards from AZ __________________ I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.

January 1, 2002, 02:52 PM	#2
TimW Member Join Date: December 26, 2000 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 79	The simple answer is: Don't shop there. If I invite you to my home and ask that you leave your gun in the car, am I liable for any injury you might sustain if there were a home invasion? Private property rights prevail, imho. What you are doing is FORCING, via Government Coercion, a retailer or business to assume liability. It's still government coercion. That's what we have tort law for.... TimW Phoenix www.brassroots.org

January 1, 2002, 04:39 PM	#12
Thairlar Senior Member Join Date: November 8, 2001 Location: MA Posts: 565	I have no problem with emotional appeals that are backed up by facts. That's one of the impressive things about the pro gun side. We stick to the facts. If you stick to facts then you can't get stymied in a debate. If a debate consists entirely of emotional appeals with no facts to back them up, then the argument is fairly easy to pick apart. If you make a point in a debate and your opponent asks for your proof, it's up to you to have the proof to back it up. It's not up to your opponent to disprove it if you have no proof. As I said, prove to me that Sandy applied for a non-resident LTC and was denied and I will gladly accept that the blame for it lays with the Commonwealth. BTW, I do agree that anyone limiting the RKBA should be liable for damages if someone couldn't defend themselves. I think there are probably current laws in most states that can be used to hold them liable without having to pass additional legislation. As I said, there's nothing wrong with an emotional argument if you have the facts to back it up. Going into a debate without facts is like going into an avoidable dangerous situation unarmed.

January 1, 2002, 05:54 PM	#14
cbjessee@NH Junior member Join Date: July 14, 2001 Location: Bedford, NH Posts: 72	As I recall, but only from the poor media coverage on the event, the Wakefield company had a policy prohibiting weapons on the property. The NH victem was said to have been an avid hunter and qualified NRA instructor. I never did find out if he did indeed have a Massachusetts LTC-A permit, required to carry a concealed firearm. Either way, MA law permits businesses to prohibit employees from carrying weapons. Hence, it is very true that MA laws may have prevented a law-abiding NH resident from defending his life against another employee who broke the rules. I guess the shooter didn't figure getting dismissed for breaking company rules was much of an added deterent to life in jail for premeditated murder. It's actually easier for us NH residents to get a non-resident MA CCW permit than MA residents, as the approval comes through the State Police Superintendent rather than by the local Chief of Police approval required for MA residents. It's a roaring pain to get photos, FBI fingerprints, home state criminal records check and to fill out the forms with just the right wording for All Legal Purposes (including self-defense), but it is otherwise much easier for non-residents - even if more expensive at $50/year. I work in a building once used by a Massachusetts university, but that is now rented out for commercial purposes. By MA law, no firearms are permitted on school property. This, by advice from a knowledgable MA lawyer, includes my building, even though there is no "school" on premisis. One should never make self-incriminating statements on forums and such, but suffice it to say that our planned January move to new offices will give me better options. BRET

January 1, 2002, 07:14 PM	#16
Waitone Senior Member Join Date: March 19, 2000 Posts: 2,904	I was lurking on the GOA site IIRC and clicked on the summary of Washington legislation pending re: RKBA. I was struck by two things: 1>anti's had many, many legislative proposals designed to slice away piece by piece the Second Amendment. 2>pro-second amendment legislation was numerically inferior by a wide margin, but the proposals all struck at the root of the anti's position. While the pro-2's loft valuable legislation, they simply do not have the harassment factor as high as the anti-2's legislation. The anti-2 movement is just eat-up with positional inconsistencies. I would like to see legislation proffered which highlights those inconsistencies. I think it entirely appropriate to adopt a strategy of tangling the anti-2's up in their own underwear. The proposal on this forum is a good start but could go further if supported with additional provisions. A good start could be legislation which would clearly delineate the government's (you pick which level) lack of responsibility to protect the jurisdiction's citizens. I do question if it is appropriate for the govt to require a private property owner to permit an armed person access. If a retail establishment keeps its facilities in a condition in which a customer injures himself, the retail owner is clearly responsible for damages. It would logically (yea, I know; logic is not normative) to hold that same retail owner liable for damages suffered by a customer if the customer is injured in an event in which the retail owner forbid the customer the means of protecting himself. That is not the same as the government saying the retail owner must admit armed customers. It is only reasonable to permit an injured customer legal recourse should something unfortunate happen. Good start, keep us posted. __________________ "Given a choice between good intentions and human nature, I'll go with human nature every time."--Me, 2002.

January 1, 2002, 07:48 PM	#17
ds1973 Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Grand Island, NY Posts: 545	Right to Life and Right to Property DO NOT CLASH. It's funny how the anti gunners will selectively use "property rights" to ban firearms from malls and parks and such, but then will confiscate your property to pay for their imaginary rights like health care and education. The right to property is meaningless without the right to life and the right to life is meaningless if you are not allowed to defend that right. To all you touting "property rights" please explain to me how someone carrying a concealed firearm onto your precious property is violating your property rights? A right is a freedom to action. The right to property is the right to earn, keep, and dispose of said property as you see fit. The right to life is the right to self-generating, self-sustaining action. No rights are violated if a CCW holder walks into my house because I've invited him for dinner, regardless of whether or not I know he is carrying. He is not destroying my property, he is not threatening my life. Similarly, if I walk into a mall to shop carrying my firearm concealed, I have violated no ones rights. If I draw my gun and shoot a cash register, THEN I have destroyed propery and should be held liable for the cost of the damage. You'd better be VERY careful how you go about defining "property rights". __________________ The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.

January 1, 2002, 08:06 PM	#18
Thairlar Senior Member Join Date: November 8, 2001 Location: MA Posts: 565	You have a right to allow or disallow whatever you want on your property. I can ask you to leave for any reason, including saying a word. Any word. I could ban the word "it" on my property and be well within my rights. If you say "it" you must leave. Same goes with allowing guns or anything else on my property. Why can restaurants have dress codes? It's their property. They can allow or disallow people access based on their dress. Would I ban guns on my property? No. It's not up to anyone to decide what someone does with their property though.

January 1, 2002, 09:29 PM	#19
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	I agree, as does the author of the bill. This proposed legislation does not outlaw "gun-free zones" in any way whatsoever. The bill simply says that if the "gun-free zone" in a business or governmental agency contributes to mayhem, then you may be liable for damages. What could be wrong with that concept? And, why do some people read this bill and translate it into a prohibition against "gun-free zones"? The language is clear and straightforward. Regards from AZ __________________ I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.

January 1, 2002, 09:53 PM	#20
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	I'm with ya, Jeff! Big time!

January 2, 2002, 09:49 AM	#21
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 3,355	Maybe if the title was something PC it would pass... "Mass murder prevention act of 2002" "Leverage of the people's rights to protect businesses and offices act of 2002" "Life and property protection act of 2002"

January 2, 2002, 11:08 AM	#22
CoyDog Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 163	Jeff, this bill is an excellent idea. It's about time we run some offense instead of playing perpetual defense. The argument that property rights are somehow diminished is off the mark. This bill is analogous to saying that if you ban winter coats on your property and a de-coated person subsequently freezes to death, you will bear some responsibility for it. CoyDog __________________ "A man's choice of weapons is a portal into his thoughts, his values, and his character."

January 2, 2002, 01:15 PM	#23
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	A response from the author ... Alan Korwin writes: Very interesting dialog you have going on the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act of 2002. Let me make a few points and a correction or two. 1. It's critically important that pro-rights individuals put forth bills to keep the unfriendlies off balance and busy swatting at all the flies (like they do to us so effectively). If you have a gripe with a pro-rights proposal, don't be divisive or waste time debating, draft a different bill yourself (or with help) and get it introduced. Don't be a pro-rights obstacle. Be a pro-rights enabler. Force the antis into defensiveness. If you want some ideas for outrageous affronts to the anti-rights crowd, check out Sunshine Gun Laws, under Position Papers at http://www.gunlaws.com. 2. Despite what some people are saying, property rights are UNAFFECTED by the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act. Read it and see, please (posted at the end). Gun-free zones are allowed, entirely at property owner's free discretion, property rights remain 100% intact. Keep guns, ban guns, allow only 9mm, I don't care, and the law ignores you on this. Maybe we should write in a guarantee for property owners to ban guns, would that make you feel better? It would be easy enough to do. 3. If you have a problem with holding people accountable for death and mayhem they cause by enabling crime, then of course you'll be against the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act. That's the position I expect anti-rights bigots to take. Bring 'em on. If nothing happens, i.e., the bigots are correct and gun-free zones are pleasant, safe and crime free, then the bill has ZERO affect on anything. Zero, nada, zip. Personally, I think that facet is particularly edifying. Sort of like, what harm could it do? 4. Try thinking of this as the Luby's Massacre Act. Maybe that will help emphasize the blatant fraud of proposing gun-free zones as safety nets. The heartless, insensitive, hate-filled perpetrators of defenseless victim zones should be ashamed of themselves. 5. After years of being forced to defend assault, deadly capacity, accessibility and so on, it's time for us to have the moral high ground for a change. Think about what the antis have to sound like to say they don't want any liability for murdered victims they had disarmed. 6. Also note that wholly private property like your home or ranch are exempt from the bill. ONLY public property or property open to the public is affected. There is a clear difference (well, the anarchists don't agree, but you can't please everyone) between truly private property (like your home) and a place that is open to the public and privately run, like a mall, or K-Mart. They can still ban guns remember, and you can still go shop elsewhere. 7. If you fight this ingenious, publicity-winning, popular rallying point on some hairline fracture you think you've found, instead of attacking some hellatious piece of profligate gross infringement that abounds out there, may I suggest you have your priorities in the wrong place, or at least you should consider again how best to spend your time. Thanks for this chance to comment. Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America [email protected] 602-996-4020 ------------------------------------------ This is good law, supportive of our fundamental rights, a deterrent to those who would perpetrate crimes, and places responsibility squarely on those who would cause us harm by their direct actions. It deserves to be enacted. Please give it your support. Sincerely, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America Scottsdale, AZ 602-996-4020 GUN-FREE-ZONE LIABILITY ACT OF 2002 Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right or ability to self defense. REFERENCE TITLE: Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act State of Arizona (sponsoring house) Forty-Fifth Legislature Second Regular Session 2002 __.B. _____ Introduced by ________________________ AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding new section 13-3117: A.R.S. §13-3117. Gun-Free-Zone Liability. A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply. B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12 (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14 (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Tresspass and Burglary), Chapter 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related Offenses) and Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order). C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to possess firearms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs. __________________ I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.

January 2, 2002, 01:38 PM	#24
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	And, one more thing ... Alan Korwin writes: One final point, an afterthought: CRIMINALS ARE NEVER BANNED by gun-free zones, right? They walk past the signs with impunity, it does NOTHING at all to deter them in any way. You cannot name a single murder that was prevented by a no-guns-allowed sign. Gun-free zones are just one more piece of outrageous injustice and sick fraud perpetrated by remorseless anti-rights tyrants and our public servants. __________________ I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.