The Right to Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed!
But, we all know that, either by law or by choice, there are many places where law abiding citizens are not allowed to bring guns.
I propose that in all such places, whether private or public, whether indoors or outdoors, whether required by law or chosen by the owner(s) of the place, where law abiding citizens must disarm, the owners of the place will assume full civil liability for any and all violent crimes committed within that place. This does not in any way remove civil liability from the perpetrators, but rather duplicates it and gives responsibility to the owner to ensure the safety of those who enter.
Caveat: This shall not apply to any who broke any law to be at the place, nor to any whom the owners have clearly barred from entry or clearly told to leave the place.
Not a bad idea.
Guns not allowed by choice of the business? Not sure I agree, but I can see your point.
Guns not allowed due to the law? A business should not automatically be held liable when they donāt have a choice in whether or not to allow guns. Hold the lawmakers responsible, not the business who would likely also be a victim of the perpetrators.
And - is it no matter what? Or, just for violent crimes that a jury decides could have been reasonably stopped by a citizen with a gun?
If a law abiding citizen is not allowed to defend themselves, then those who are denying them that right must take responsibility for their safety from violent crime. I think that this is a no-matter-what kind of thing. What category of violent crimes are you thinking would fall outside of the arena of āviolent crimes that a jury decides could have been reasonably stopped by a citizen with a gunā?
Private property owners should have the ability to regulate their own property. Butā¦ if private owners decide you are not allowed to protect yourself, then they MUST assume that responsibility. For instance, if a mall has a no-gun policy and you get assaulted in the mall, then the mall would be responsible for your damages/death.
Secondly, we should have all rights to bear arms in public buildings and on public lands, with the only exception being a building soley used as a courthouse.
If it is the law that wonāt allow citizens with guns in a business, the business owner is not who is denying our rights.
Iām thinking of violent crimes that people would possibly not see happening or be reasonably expected to stop - like a bombing or a situation where the good people are extremely outnumbered in criminals and guns. I just think it should not be āno matter whatā - every situation would need to be evaluated individually ā¦ in my opinion.
I would be open to shifting at least some of the responsibility to the person(s) or entity which made the decision which forced the disarmament, but the one who is capable of providing safety will most likely be the direct owner.
Honestly, the escape hatch I would rather give to owners of such places is if they can convince a civil suit jury that they did all that could reasonably be done to protect the place. I do not want to put the standard of what one armed law abiding citizen could have done to protect himself into the equation.
The federal government should mandate all gun free zones must provide armed security, carry a minimum of ten million insurance per customer allowed into the business by fire code, be personally considered as accessories to any violent crimes that occurs in the zone, be financially responsible both as a business and an individual for all Actual Damages, Compensatory Damages, Special Damages, Punitive Damages, and any Jury Awards.