MI-Lawmaker Wants To Make Gun-Free Zones Liable If Someone Hurt

[mikeyp]

I wish this was nationwide

Lawmaker Wants To Make Gun-Free Zones Liable If Someone Hurt

A Republican state representative has introduced legislation that would hold government offices and private businesses liable if anyone is injured during a shooting in a gun-free zone on their premises.

State Rep. Gary Eisen, R-St. Clair Township, introduced House Bill 4975, which would revoke governmental immunity from lawsuits arising from injuries sustained on government property where guns are banned. Eisen is also the sponsor of House Bill 4976, which would make a government, business or individual that designates a property a gun-free zone responsible for the safety of individuals who enter it.

Eisen said the intention was to require a business or government that enforces a gun-free policy to take responsibility through measures like hiring security guards.

“I have to presume that no one will have a gun inside and I will be safe,” Eisen said. “They are telling me, ‘Don’t worry, Mr. Eisen, this is a gun-free zone. You’ll be perfectly safe in here.’ We know that is not the case.”

Eisen said by not allowing him to carry a gun, government and companies that declare their property a gun-free zone could be held liable under his bills.

“If they don’t want to be liable, then don’t put the sign in the window,” Eisen said.

The St. Clair County lawmaker is a firearms instructor who teaches classes for those seeking a concealed pistol license; he also trains people on handling weapons.

Eisen said part of the rationale for his bill lies with a report that 98% of mass public shootings happen in gun-free zones. The Washington Post reported that President Donald Trump recited that statistic in a May 4 speech to the National Rifle Association.

The Washington Post said the figure comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center’s updated 2014 report. That report stated that 98.4 percent of mass shootings from 1950 to July 10, 2016, happened in gun-free zones.

“We call them killing zones, not gun-free zones,” Eisen said.

Neither the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and nor the Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence organization returned emails seeking comment on the bills.

 

[Dadstoys]

Makes perfect sense to me.
If you create a situation then you should own it.

 

[Varmint]

Bad laws are still bad, even if they benefit you.

 

[Sparky123]

Makes perfectly good sense. If you refuse to allow people to protect themselves then you must provide them protection, either that or be held responsible for injury or death.

 

[42!]

Gov buildings, where there are services that you have no choice but to use, yes they should be responsible. You don't have an option to go elsewhere and they have removed your ability to defend yourself, so they have taken on the responsibility to protect you.

Private businesses, assuming they have provided clear notice, and they are not a sole provider of the service (such as a Comcast office), so you have the option to go elsewhere, then No. You are making a choice to be there when you have options. Don't like the policy, go elsewhere.

 

[mothybee]

Timothy McVeigh approves this message

 

[wahsben]

so you have the option to go elsewhere, then No. You are making a choice to be there when you have options. Don't like the policy, go elsewhere.

What if the next option is 100 miles away? What if for whatever reason all the business's within reasonable distance decide no guns so there is no place within reasonable distance?

 

[Mass9mmshooter]

I this passes, Michigan will be added to my list of potential states to relocate too.

 

[42!]

What if the next option is 100 miles away? What if for whatever reason all the business's within reasonable distance decide no guns so there is no place within reasonable distance?

You have to draw the line someplace. Should a bakery be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding when the nearest bakery that will is 100 miles away?

I did include an exception for a cable company (and I'm assuming one own in the town/city), because the consumer has no option. No matter how far you drive, the one servicing you town is the only one to choose from.

 

[wahsben]

You have to draw the line someplace. Should a bakery be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding when the nearest bakery that will is 100 miles away?

I did include an exception for a cable company (and I'm assuming one own in the town/city), because the consumer has no option. No matter how far you drive, the one servicing you town is the only one to choose from.

When it comes to self-defense and a place is open to the public I don't think disarmament is the line to be drawn. What if someone needs an emergency medicine and the only pharmacy open nearby says no guns. The anti's put pressure on a regular basis for business's to ban guns so IMO if a place is open to the public they have no right to deny a persons right of self-defense. The line if a line is to be drawn, it should be drawn against disarmament.

 

[42!]

When it comes to self-defense and a place is open to the public I don't think disarmament is the line to be drawn. What if someone needs an emergency medicine and the only pharmacy open nearby says no guns. The anti's put pressure on a regular basis for business's to ban guns so IMO if a place is open to the public they have no right to deny a persons right of self-defense. The line if a line is to be drawn, it should be drawn against disarmament.

First off, how about we leave out the BS examples, what if the sky is falling and the only roof nearby doesn't allow guns? Seriously? This is just BS trying to find an extreme example when you don't have a legitimate example. We are not talking about some some twisted hyperbole.

And don't business owners have rights too?

And frankly the business isn't taking away your right to self defence. They are saying if you want to come on my property you can't have a gun. YOU now have the choice to either disarm or go somewhere else. You are making a choice, take responsibility for your choice. Trying to hold someone else responsible for your choice is one of the fundamental problems we face today, don't add to it.

I make a clear exception for situations where you are forced to use a specific service/location.

I'll add that you can already sue for pretty much anything, having the Gov dictate another reason isn't necessary

 

[wahsben]

First off, how about we leave out the BS examples, what if the sky is falling and the only roof nearby doesn't allow guns? Seriously? This is just BS trying to find an extreme example when you don't have a legitimate example. We are not talking about some some twisted hyperbole.

And don't business owners have rights too?

And frankly the business isn't taking away your right to self defence. They are saying if you want to come on my property you can't have a gun. YOU now have the choice to either disarm or go somewhere else. You are making a choice, take responsibility for your choice. Trying to hold someone else responsible for your choice is one of the fundamental problems we face today, don't add to it.

I make a clear exception for situations where you are forced to use a specific service/location.

I'll add that you can already sue for pretty much anything, having the Gov dictate another reason isn't necessary

There is no BS just the reality that these things can and do happen. The anti's work overtime to get places to deny us our rights. My position is that the right to life supersedes all other rights and that the right to keep and bear arms helps to protect that right. The business owners have the right to do business, not to deny others their rights.

 

[Dadstoys]

First off, how about we leave out the BS examples, what if the sky is falling and the only roof nearby doesn't allow guns? Seriously? This is just BS trying to find an extreme example when you don't have a legitimate example. We are not talking about some some twisted hyperbole.

And don't business owners have rights too?

And frankly the business isn't taking away your right to self defence. They are saying if you want to come on my property you can't have a gun. YOU now have the choice to either disarm or go somewhere else. You are making a choice, take responsibility for your choice. Trying to hold someone else responsible for your choice is one of the fundamental problems we face today, don't add to it.

I make a clear exception for situations where you are forced to use a specific service/location.

I'll add that you can already sue for pretty much anything, having the Gov dictate another reason isn't necessary

Does that mean these could come back in style ?
Their business , their rules.

 

[Uzi2]

I this passes, Michigan will be added to my list of potential states to relocate too.

Make sure its at or close to the bottom of that list, they have 235 pages of gun laws.

 

[42!]

Some are so quick to take away a business owner's rights when they disagree with them. No one is forcing you to do business with them, so no one is disarming you. You are choosing to disarm yourself and go there.

As much as I dislike the idea, I guess limiting who your clients are based on, well anything, about them would be up to the business owner. Of course that freedom does not make them exempt from the repercussions of doing this. Just like choosing to disarm yourself, you make this choice, you answer for the consequences.

Why are you so against personal responsibility.

And AGAIN, you can already sue, why do we need more laws.... sound familiar?

 

[strangenh]

I'm not so certain ordinary tort law today doesn't already support liability for creating a gun-free zone and then failing in one's duty to provide protection (and enforce it). I've definitely seen reports of settlement with licensed-to-carry crime victims in gun-free zones, but that could just be the cost of potential litigation playing out.

This proposed law seems to take it further, though, setting up the duty explicitly, and essentially assigning per se negligence - reversing the burden of proof onto the defendant for harms that ensue (and really, the bill assigning the liability reads to me like a strict liability law).

So that's a big change. But don't for a minute think that it's not currently core negligence law to have liability where someone a) creates a situation where they intentionally remove someone's ability to do something and then b) fails to provide the countervailing service.

 

[wahsben]

No one should have to run around all over creation to get what they need/want. A policy that endangers public safety is a bad policy and that is what gun free zones/ no guns allowed policies do. Therefore someone that enacts bad policy should be held liable since their policies have led to deaths. GFZ's are welcome mats to terrorists, madmen, criminals etc. Also no one should have to ask permission to protect and defend themselves and no one should have the power or authority to deny another that right. Why are those business owners that enact these policies so against personal responsibility that they would deny someone their right to protect and defend themselves?

 

[42!]

No one should have to run around all over creation to get what they need/want. A policy that endangers public safety is a bad policy and that is what gun free zones/ no guns allowed policies do. Therefore someone that enacts bad policy should be held liable since their policies have led to deaths. GFZ's are welcome mats to terrorists, madmen, criminals etc. Also no one should have to ask permission to protect and defend themselves and no one should have the power or authority to deny another that right. Why are those business owners that enact these policies so against personal responsibility that they would deny someone their right to protect and defend themselves?

Explain again why you are entitled to the goods or services of a private individual and the gov should be used to enforce your opinion/desire?

 

[Dadstoys]

Explain again why you are entitled to the goods or services of a private individual and the gov should be used to enforce your opinion/desire?

I'm curious to your opinion on what I posted in #13.
Is it or is it not ok for a business to discriminate ?
For the record I do in fact support the Baker who did not want to make a custom cake.
What would not have been cool is for him to have a sign on the front door saying no Gays, Blacks, or Jews , ect. however.

 

[42!]

I'm curious to your opinion on what I posted in #13.
Is it or is it not ok for a business to discriminate ?
For the record I do in fact support the Baker who did not want to make a custom cake.
What would not have been cool is for him to have a sign on the front door saying no Gays, Blacks, or Jews , ect. however.

I reposed, go look.

 

[Dadstoys]

I reposed, go look.

So can I take that as a yes ?

 

[wahsben]

Explain again why you are entitled to the goods or services of a private individual and the gov should be used to enforce your opinion/desire?

He is in business to sell to the public and I'm part of the public and although I'm not entitled to their goods I along with anyone else am entitled to the right to protect and defend myself wherever we go. Why are they entitled to deny me that ability? I'm not depriving them of anything by carrying a firearm. As I pointed out GFZ are bad policy and anyone that has lost a loved one, not just gun owners should be allowed to sue since disarmament policies enable mass murderers to commit their acts more easily. Tell me why do you support gun control? I don't like more laws but since they use plenty of laws against us and sue people that had nothing to do with the murderer's actions this law might make places think twice before disarming the innocent. The murderer at the Aurora Theater in Colorado had theaters closer to him but he chose the one with the no guns allowed sign. Almost all of these mass murders occurred where people were denied their RKBA.

 

[42!]

He is in business to sell to the public and I'm part of the public ....

And he's decided not to sell to people who are armed. Why does he get to decide to sell to the public but then he's not allowed to decide he doesn't want to sell to people who are armed.

Just like you, I don't agree with his decision, but he has a right to decide who he does business with. Why do your rights matter more than his? And he's taking nothing from you, don't like his rules don't come on his property. It's no different than a homeowner saying no guns in his house. No one is forcing you to shop there. But you're special and he should bow to your win.

And AGAIN, you can already sue him. So this law is pointless grandstanding and an infringement on property owner's rights.

 

[Cipher]

And he's decided not to sell to people who are armed. Why does he get to decide to sell to the public but then he's not allowed to decide he doesn't want to sell to people who are armed.

Just like you, I don't agree with his decision, but he has a right to decide who he does business with. Why do your rights matter more than his? And he's taking nothing from you, don't like his rules don't come on his property. It's no different than a homeowner saying no guns in his house. No one is forcing you to shop there. But you're special and he should bow to your win.

And AGAIN, you can already sue him. So this law is pointless grandstanding and an infringement on property owner's rights.

By depriving ones right to protect themselves you create a situation where people can get hurt or lose their life over an irresponsible decision. Businesses are already required by law to adhere to various safety standards or be fined, shut down, sued etc... Food safety regulations, building codes , whatever. Now this pro 2A stance is good because it does prevent major corporations that shift tend to be left wing from stomping on us. It also shifts a trend toward seeing gun owners as a protected group. Business owners meeting up discussing ways they can quash 2A without the gov should concern everyone. This isn't just some dude with his property. These are international corporations with foreign input and shareholders.

Side note: Pretty soon the "taking your business elsewhere" approach will leave you without clothes and food.

 

[42!]

The hypocrisy is incredible.

 

[wahsben]

And he's decided not to sell to people who are armed. Why does he get to decide to sell to the public but then he's not allowed to decide he doesn't want to sell to people who are armed.

Just like you, I don't agree with his decision, but he has a right to decide who he does business with. Why do your rights matter more than his? And he's taking nothing from you, don't like his rules don't come on his property. It's no different than a homeowner saying no guns in his house. No one is forcing you to shop there. But you're special and he should bow to your win.

And AGAIN, you can already sue him. So this law is pointless grandstanding and an infringement on property owner's rights.

The right to life and the right to protect that right supersede the right to property because if you lose the right to life you lose the right to everything else.
Tell me what is the property owner giving up? If a person walks in armed or unarmed nothing changes for the business owner. They don't have to change their behavior in anyway but the gun owner has to either choose to leave their property behind IE: their gun and be pretty much defenseless or they have to choose to ignore the policy which could cause them legal problems depending on what state or to go look elsewhere for what they need which they shouldn't have to do. Also the elderly, the disabled and those on fixed incomes may not have as much mobility and access to travel and they shouldn't have to run around all over the place just to find a place that recognizes their right to self defense. No it's not the same as a homeowner since their private residence is not open to the public.
Yes you can sue but the courts aren't usually on our side so it's an expensive endeavor and probably not likely to end in our favor especially depending on what state you're in.
GFZ's decrease public safety by creating conditions that are conducive to attack since the attacker knows they have a higher degree of success there. I don't believe the law says they can't have a GFZ policy. It just says if they do they can be held liable if something happens. Why shouldn't a place that creates a condition where an attacker has a higher probability of success be held accountable not only by gun owners but by anyone?
The anti's have used government to give us GFZ, Red Flags, mag bans and restrictions and a myriad of other gun control laws. Maybe it's time to fight back.

 

[42!]

The right to life and the right to protect that right supersede the right to property because if you lose the right to life you lose the right to everything else.
Tell me what is the property owner giving up? If a person walks in armed or unarmed nothing changes for the business owner. They don't have to change their behavior in anyway but the gun owner has to either choose to leave their property behind IE: their gun and be pretty much defenseless or they have to choose to ignore the policy which could cause them legal problems depending on what state or to go look elsewhere for what they need which they shouldn't have to do. Also the elderly, the disabled and those on fixed incomes may not have as much mobility and access to travel and they shouldn't have to run around all over the place just to find a place that recognizes their right to self defense. No it's not the same as a homeowner since their private residence is not open to the public.
Yes you can sue but the courts aren't usually on our side so it's an expensive endeavor and probably not likely to end in our favor especially depending on what state you're in.
GFZ's decrease public safety by creating conditions that are conducive to attack since the attacker knows they have a higher degree of success there. I don't believe the law says they can't have a GFZ policy. It just says if they do they can be held liable if something happens. Why shouldn't a place that creates a condition where an attacker has a higher probability of success be held accountable not only by gun owners but by anyone?
The anti's have used government to give us GFZ, Red Flags, mag bans and restrictions and a myriad of other gun control laws. Maybe it's time to fight back.

This isn't abou Gov GFZ, or Red flags, your feeble attempt to redirect the argument won't work.

You obviously feel your rights are more important than other peoples right, if you owned a business how would you feel if someone else was telling you how to run it. You have no respect for other people rights. Bottom line, you do not have a right to shop anywhere you want, you do not have a right to carry on someones property if they do not want guns there (I don't agree with that idea but they have their rights too). Poor you, you'd have to shop someplace else.

You insist people have rights until they disagree with you, Antifa is proud of what you've become.

 

[drgrant]

First off, how about we leave out the BS examples, what if the sky is falling and the only roof nearby doesn't allow guns? Seriously? This is just BS trying to find an extreme example when you don't have a legitimate example. We are not talking about some some twisted hyperbole.

And don't business owners have rights too?

Ever since the ADA, and Civil Rights acts etc, a lot of that was pretty much stripped away. A lot of "businesses open to the general public" are subject to a different set of rules than say a private club, etc. One prong argues "If they can't ban people in wheelchairs or brown
people from coming in, then they shouldn't be able to ban someone with a lawfully carried gun. " I think to one extent you're arguing that
the toothpaste should be put back in the tube here, I think it's a little late for that.

I'm of the mind that at a bare minimum all binding signage should be illegal. And if you're open to the public, if you don't have a gate presence screening people, you have no business restricting lawful concealed carry that exceeds the trespass standard. (EG, you could still ban people, but not with force of law via a stupid f***ing window decal.) Laws that expose people to criminal liability for merely traipsing/walking into something like a CVS drugstore or some shit because of a sign they didn't see are vile.

Most of this bullshit though could be resolved a third way.... just kill binding signage. Like f***ing murder it. Then the signs are just stupid but mostly meaningless to most gun carriers. Then we don't have to worry or be concerned about ambulance chasers/tort BS at all.

The gov building thing is a different story, but basically if there's no gigantic exigent public safety interest (like jail, holding areas, looney bin, etc) government shouldn't be able to restrict that shit at all. Buildings and areas commonly accessible by citizens should not be restricted. I'll even go so far as to suggest that open political chambers like a state house etc should not be restricted. If a legislator thinks that someone is going to come in and do them harm, maybe they should moderate their output a little bit...

-Mike

 

[42!]

Ever since the ADA, and Civil Rights acts etc, a lot of that was pretty much stripped away. A lot of "businesses open to the general public" are subject to a different set of rules than say a private club, etc. One prong argues "If they can't ban people in wheelchairs or brown
people from coming in, then they shouldn't be able to ban someone with a lawfully carried gun. " I think to one extent you're arguing that
the toothpaste should be put back in the tube here, I think it's a little late for that.

I'm of the mind that at a bare minimum all binding signage should be illegal. And if you're open to the public, if you don't have a gate presence screening people, you have no business restricting lawful concealed carry that exceeds the trespass standard. (EG, you could still ban people, but not with force of law via a stupid f***ing window decal.) Laws that expose people to criminal liability for merely traipsing/walking into something like a CVS drugstore or some shit because of a sign they didn't see are vile.

Most of this bullshit though could be resolved a third way.... just kill binding signage. Like f***ing murder it. Then the signs are just stupid but mostly meaningless to most gun carriers. Then we don't have to worry or be concerned about ambulance chasers/tort BS at all.

The gov building thing is a different story, but basically if there's no gigantic exigent public safety interest (like jail, holding areas, looney bin, etc) government shouldn't be able to restrict that shit at all. Buildings and areas commonly accessible by citizens should not be restricted. I'll even go so far as to suggest that open political chambers like a state house etc should not be restricted. If a legislator thinks that someone is going to come in and do them harm, maybe they should moderate their output a little bit...

-Mike

I would tend to agree.

While the argument I've been engaged in has been, more or less, about does a business owner have a right to say "no gun", the MI law is really about liability which arguably could exist even without the new law.

Binding signage is BS, trespass laws cover many situation and certainly would cover the situation if an owner told you to leave because you CC, no need for new laws. But let's be clear, the owner has the right to do this, even if I don't agree with that position.

As for Gov. buildings, I've already agreed on this on, If you truly have no choice, you should not be prohibited. Participating in, which includes observing, your government can't be done someplace else. Right now you can carry in the NH statehouse, but not in the hall where the House meets (what it's name?), due to a stupid rule. Although how they can enforce it on the public when a number of legislatures have openly said they will be carrying anyway, is an interesting question, that no one has put to the test.

 

[Cipher]

Perhaps a solution we can all agree in is in order?

Concealed means concealed