Posted: 1/7/2017 11:50:57 AM EDT
|
I have seen the discussion for gun free zone liability brought up in many of the past active shooter threads. I did a quick search and could not find a thread dedicated to gun free zone liability, so I am making one. I searched the terms "gun free zone" and "gun free liability"
After some google foo it seems that Wisconsin is the only state that has some form of immunity for businesses allowing concealed carry. Under Wisconsin's Concealed Carry Act a business is immune from damages sustained by CCW holders incurred on their property in regards to self defense if they allow the individual to carry in/at their business. The business is no longer immune from these damages if they prohibit concealed carry. This seems to be the only law at any level that states a business or entity is responsible for fulfilling the security of an individual who is prohibited from carrying at XYZ location. My question is "why hasn't "Gun Free Zone Liability" become a reality?" I have seen the argument that states "mah business, mah propertay, mah rights" which means that if a business wants to prohibit concealed carry that is their right. There are two issues with this argument. A national precedent has already been set stating that a business can not deny or discriminate against an individuals constitutional rights (think about the cake store forced to make a cake for a gay couple because it was the gay couples right to have the cake made). While YMMV on the subject the fact is the precedent is set and is not going anywhere anytime soon. The other issue with this defense is that "the right to bear arms is an enumerated civil right and that 18 USC Sections 241 and 242 makes it a Federal crime either to conspire to deprive someone of a constitutionally protected right (241) or for a person to act under color of law to deprive someone of his or her rights or privileges protected under the Constitution (242)." (Alan Korwin) This means it *should* be a felony for a business, entity, ect. to deny an individual their second amendment rights. Another argument against gun free zone liability is that a gun free zone is not an inherently dangerous place, and that criminal activity committed by a third party is not the fault of the business owner. In a nutshell this argument states that business owners are responsible for foreseeable incidences that could take place (think of using wet floor signs for wet floors and fixing rotted out stairs) and that an event committed by a third party is not a foreseeable event. The arguments against this line of thinking are that an individual could have conceivably defended themselves in the event of criminal activity, shootings are more likely to occur in gun free zones and are a statistical certainty, (Shootings will happen at unknown locations (albiet more likely at gun free zones), just like lightning strikes. If an individual were to be killed by lightning in a business we could safely assume the business owner would be responsible) and that criminal activity is not unpredictable (criminal activity is predictable which is shown by the fact that banks have guards and businesses have theft insurance, it is more likely that criminal activity will take place at XYZ business). Why doesn't someone expand on the precedent set by District of Columbia v. Heller or McDonald v. Chicago to say that an individuals right to possess a firearm to defend themselves is absolute. I know that McDonald v. Chicago was different than D.C. v. Heller but this discussion is not about the 2A in general so lets try to keep that in mind here. TLDR: Why hasn't "Gun Free Zone Liability" become a reality? |
|
No one's replied to this yet?
Shocking. I'll take a stab at it; only way you'd have standing to sue a place that has made its property a GFZ is by being in a state where GFZ signs have the force of law, and a CCW that you were forced to leave in your vehicle, or off of the property. Then you'd have to be there while the place was being robbed/shot up/etc, and incur some form of injury that you could prove would not have happened if you'd had access to your CCW. I guess emotional pain and suffering could count as damages, (Though, most people who CCW aren't eh type to use that excuse. Hell, for a lot of us, Concealed means concealed  ) as could the death/injury of a friend/SO/family member/child.
Most places, upon receiving notification that they're being sued, would probably go with a private, out of court settlement. Cheaper that way. Not many can pass up several thousand dollars. Finally, even if you had standing, a good lawyer, and actual physical injuries due to the incident, you'd have to get a judge that isn't a rabid anti-gun libtard to even have a chance of winning a civil suit. And a civil jury trial could be like legal Russian roulette, depending on the area from which the pool of jurors is chosen. |
|
So what it seems like so far is that nobody involved in a situation where a case could be made for GFZ liability has taken the case up to a court where a precedent could be set. Following with Kbear's post the Navy Yard shooting is still pending. I see why individuals that have a financial incentive to drop a case would. Has a pro 2A group (NRA for instance) backed the victims of one of these incidences or do they have bigger fish to fry for now? With all of the shootings taking place recently, most recently the Ft. Lauderdale incident, this question keeps popping up in my mind.
I know it would be a legal nightmare (particularly with the aforementioned fact that juries can completely fuck a case) but I can't help but believe that this would be a good step in the direction of making the 2A more accepted (and practiced) throughout the country. Thanks for the replies so far. |