Bill Would Hold "Gun Free Zones" Liable for Losses Suffered by Gun Owners

[Reptile]

‘If you’re going to make people give up their right to self defense, then you must defend them,’ says Minn. House rep
A Minnesota House rep. has introduced a new bill intended to hold “gun free zones” responsible for their patrons’ safety.

The new bill, House File 3051 introduced on Feb. 11 by District 23B Rep. Jeremy Munson, would make businesses that post “gun free zone” signs liable in the event a gun owner suffers a loss which could have been prevented by having their firearm.

“So this law simply says if you’re going to make people give up their right to self defense, then you must defend them and you must provide security and protect them,” Rep. Munson stated in an interview describing his bill.

Bill Would Hold “Gun Free Zones” Liable for Losses Suffered by Gun Owners

'If you’re going to make people give up their right to self defense, then you must defend them,' says Minn. House rep

www.infowars.com

 

[ridleyman]

Wow, a pol with a heart and a brain, who would have thunk it?

 

[frenchman]

Nope, not for it. The owner of private property should have the right to say what goes on his land/in his place. If it's a public place (as in like "owned by the public") it's different. But if a mall or a cinema decides that they don't want firearms on their premises, they should be able to do so without automatically having a duty to protect you. Government shouldn't tell you what you can or can not do in/on your own property, even if this wouldn't benefit me. Anything else would open a can of worms.

 

[granitestater]

a private property that is open to the public is not the same as a private home. all civil rights must be respected

Nope, not for it. The owner of private property should have the right to say what goes on his land/in his place. If it's a public place (as in like "owned by the public") it's different. But if a mall or a cinema decides that they don't want firearms on their premises, they should be able to do so without automatically having a duty to protect you. Government shouldn't tell you what you can or can not do in/on your own property, even if this wouldn't benefit me. Anything else would open a can of worms.

do you think theater owners should be able to keep out blacks or Hispanics?

and some states allow businesses to put up a no guns allowed sign and of someone carries anyway its arrestable. The right to bear arms is a civil right and should be respected as such. And for those who say just boycott.... boycotts don’t work. Sure you can not go to the movies but people need groceries and other necessities.

 

[Srboostjunkie]

Nope, not for it. The owner of private property should have the right to say what goes on his land/in his place. If it's a public place (as in like "owned by the public") it's different. But if a mall or a cinema decides that they don't want firearms on their premises, they should be able to do so without automatically having a duty to protect you. Government shouldn't tell you what you can or can not do in/on your own property, even if this wouldn't benefit me. Anything else would open a can of worms.

too late there is already plenty of laws on the books that tell you what you can and can't do on your own private property

 

[strangenh]

Not sure that's not already a possibility under existing MN state tort law (or, the bill might be in response to a court case holding there is no duty to protect those one has disarmed), but I like the idea all the same. Depends on the nature of the establishment (in that I am halfway agreeing with frenchman).

(Just don't confuse a law allowing one to sue as being necessary in this instance unless and until there's case law saying otherwise.)

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The last I checked, the penalty for carrying on the premises of a business with a "no guns" sign in MN was $25 and the law specifically stated that forfeiture of the firearm was not allowed as part of the penalty.

 

[robjax]

Nope, not for it. The owner of private property should have the right to say what goes on his land/in his place. If it's a public place (as in like "owned by the public") it's different. But if a mall or a cinema decides that they don't want firearms on their premises, they should be able to do so without automatically having a duty to protect you. Government shouldn't tell you what you can or can not do in/on your own property, even if this wouldn't benefit me. Anything else would open a can of worms.

any place the public is allowed....private residence should be exempt but nothing else. If the public is invited whether you take money or not then you either provide armed protective services or let me bring my own.