Gun-free-zone Liability Act Of 2002
- Thread starter Jeff Thomas
- Start date
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
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
New member
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
alan@gunlaws.com
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.
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
alan@gunlaws.com
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
New member
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.
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.
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
Jeff Thomas
New member
So, Rick, without conceding the issue at all ... how would you change this law to be more palatable to you? Do the perpetrators of these fraudulent "gun-free zones" have any responsibility for their lies and deception.
And, if you have a better law or verbiage, please introduce it. Won't hurt at all for the anti-self defense scum to have a "target rich environment" at the legislature ...
As Alan says, let's keep them dancing for a change.
Regards from AZ
And, if you have a better law or verbiage, please introduce it. Won't hurt at all for the anti-self defense scum to have a "target rich environment" at the legislature ...
As Alan says, let's keep them dancing for a change.Regards from AZ
I, uh, me!!?
Homina homina homina homina.
A little background. A few sessions ago, a pro-gun legislator in Arizona proposed such a law. His law would have banned private property owners (shops and malls and such) from having No Weapons policies.
He was shocked to see us tell him to kill his own bill because it would allow our RKBA to trump someone else's property rights. Principle confuses some folk.
Later, as I recall, the law was amended (or maybe it was like that from the beginning) to ban weapons in government buildings (and end the long-time weapons checking policy there under ARS 13-3102(A)(10)). That really frosted us.
Lemme change a poopie diaper and I'll get right back to you.
Rick
Homina homina homina homina.
A little background. A few sessions ago, a pro-gun legislator in Arizona proposed such a law. His law would have banned private property owners (shops and malls and such) from having No Weapons policies.
He was shocked to see us tell him to kill his own bill because it would allow our RKBA to trump someone else's property rights. Principle confuses some folk.
Later, as I recall, the law was amended (or maybe it was like that from the beginning) to ban weapons in government buildings (and end the long-time weapons checking policy there under ARS 13-3102(A)(10)). That really frosted us.
Lemme change a poopie diaper and I'll get right back to you.
Rick
If the sign says;
NO GUNS ALLOWED.
It should also read;
ENTER AT OWN RISK.
PLEASE SIGN LIABILITY WAIVER INSIDE.
As a holder of a CHL. I challange store owners or managers as much as I can when I see a sign NO GUNS ALLOWED.
Threats of civil action is what brought down a lot of signs back when Texas first passed CHL legislation.
NO GUNS ALLOWED.
It should also read;
ENTER AT OWN RISK.
PLEASE SIGN LIABILITY WAIVER INSIDE.
As a holder of a CHL. I challange store owners or managers as much as I can when I see a sign NO GUNS ALLOWED.
Threats of civil action is what brought down a lot of signs back when Texas first passed CHL legislation.
Jeff Thomas
New member
Rick, wash your hands before getting back on this thread ...
Let me offer that it might be that earlier law / experience that is confusing people on Alan's bill. Perhaps you can show me the part of the bill that infringes on private property rights. Puleese?
Regards from AZ
Let me offer that it might be that earlier law / experience that is confusing people on Alan's bill. Perhaps you can show me the part of the bill that infringes on private property rights. Puleese?
Regards from AZ
I'd go for it in a heartbeat if it were governmental property only.
I'd like to amend it to add liability for "any locality which, by law, prevents law-abiding citizens from being prepared to defend the lives of themselves or their families". When the government takes it upon itself to provide for the safety of its people (and that's what they do when they restrict your ability to defend yourself), then it assumes the liability when it fails to do so.
Here's the rub where private property is concerned: You do NOT have the right to go there. If you are on private property, you are there under the consent of the owner under whatever restrictions he or she may have. If you don't like the restrictions, leave. It's really that simple. That goes for places of business as well as private residences.
I'd like to amend it to add liability for "any locality which, by law, prevents law-abiding citizens from being prepared to defend the lives of themselves or their families". When the government takes it upon itself to provide for the safety of its people (and that's what they do when they restrict your ability to defend yourself), then it assumes the liability when it fails to do so.
Here's the rub where private property is concerned: You do NOT have the right to go there. If you are on private property, you are there under the consent of the owner under whatever restrictions he or she may have. If you don't like the restrictions, leave. It's really that simple. That goes for places of business as well as private residences.
I fail to see how a law that essentially says 'Create a dangerous situation on your property and you may be held liable for damages that could otherwise have been prevented' violates property rights.
The privately owned grocery store I shop at can't be forced to fix the leaky roof, but when my elderly neighbor slipped on the wet floor and broke her wrist the store gladly picked up the tab at the Dr. If they had not, it would have just cost them more $ when lawyers and punitive damages were eventually figured in. They knew the roof leaked, they knew it was raining, they did nothing about the slick floor, they were liable for her injury.
The same principle would apply if this law was enacted.
The privately owned grocery store I shop at can't be forced to fix the leaky roof, but when my elderly neighbor slipped on the wet floor and broke her wrist the store gladly picked up the tab at the Dr. If they had not, it would have just cost them more $ when lawyers and punitive damages were eventually figured in. They knew the roof leaked, they knew it was raining, they did nothing about the slick floor, they were liable for her injury.
The same principle would apply if this law was enacted.
The property owner has the right to set the conditions for the use of his or her property. If you are aware of those conditions and choose to accept them by making use of their property, then there is not and should not be any liability on the part of the owner.
It's a "let the buyer beware" sort of thing.
Jeff Thomas
New member
And, Bob, do you think there is just a teenie weenie bit of fraud in those conditions as indicated by the business owner? Do you think that most people believe that the implicit if not explicit message is "For Your Safety, No Weapons Allowed"?
You and I both know that these governmental agencies and business owners are defrauding the public by intimating that these so-called "gun-free zones" are somehow safer ... when they know damn well that is not the case.
I don't recognize contracts based upon fraud, and I'm a bit surprised that some RKBA supporters do ...
In sum, frankly, if you don't care for this bill, then please offer up your own version, or your own method of exposing the fraud of "gun-free zones". If you do like this bill, and you're an Arizona citizen, then please support this bill in our legislature. If you're not an Arizona citizen, then please consider offering this bill up to your own state legislators.
Regards from AZ
You and I both know that these governmental agencies and business owners are defrauding the public by intimating that these so-called "gun-free zones" are somehow safer ... when they know damn well that is not the case.
I don't recognize contracts based upon fraud, and I'm a bit surprised that some RKBA supporters do ...
In sum, frankly, if you don't care for this bill, then please offer up your own version, or your own method of exposing the fraud of "gun-free zones". If you do like this bill, and you're an Arizona citizen, then please support this bill in our legislature. If you're not an Arizona citizen, then please consider offering this bill up to your own state legislators.
Regards from AZ
Sorry, I got done with the diaper and found myself being driven to the furniture store (Big Tin Shed) to buy and entertainment center.
I agree with Bob's post. I don't think that the store owners are engaging in fraud, generally. I think they are listening to their lawyers, who are engaging in fraud.
Hmmmm, how about a bill that would...
Oh, yeah, that would be sweet.
Rick
I agree with Bob's post. I don't think that the store owners are engaging in fraud, generally. I think they are listening to their lawyers, who are engaging in fraud.
Hmmmm, how about a bill that would...
Oh, yeah, that would be sweet.
Rick
OKAY, for everyone who CAN'T READ!
This bill DOES NOTHING to the rights of businesses! It only defines the penalties for not providing adequate security for those who shop there! AS THEY ARE ALREADY REQUIRED TO DO!
How hard is this to understand? People sue businesses daily for failure to provide proper security. This just makes the victim-disarmed zones look as stupid as they are. Business who post these signs have PUT THEMSELVES in severe legal trouble already. There are lawyers all over the country looking for that first "I was hurt because I couldn't defend myself and they DIDN'T" case! Give me a break.:barf:
If you think this law affects private property rights, then please, for your own good, don't get into business, because you don't understand existing law enough to keep out of big lawsuit trouble.
This bill DOES NOTHING to the rights of businesses! It only defines the penalties for not providing adequate security for those who shop there! AS THEY ARE ALREADY REQUIRED TO DO!
How hard is this to understand? People sue businesses daily for failure to provide proper security. This just makes the victim-disarmed zones look as stupid as they are. Business who post these signs have PUT THEMSELVES in severe legal trouble already. There are lawyers all over the country looking for that first "I was hurt because I couldn't defend myself and they DIDN'T" case! Give me a break.:barf:
If you think this law affects private property rights, then please, for your own good, don't get into business, because you don't understand existing law enough to keep out of big lawsuit trouble.
VictorLouis
New member
Would this law have applied to the office worker mentioned on page one? I mean, the buiding they worked in was more than likely private, and open only to the employees and management that worked there. I appreciate the spirit behind it, but I think the effort might be better spent by actually suing the employer, as in this example, IF there was a 'No firearms policy' at his workplace. Such a suit, if successful, would no-doubt be covered greatly in the firearms press, and in the tort-law journals that all of the legal-eagles subscribe to.
Jeff, if you would e-mail me, I have a question on another, unrelated matter.
Jeff, if you would e-mail me, I have a question on another, unrelated matter.
Let me ask a question to help clarify my position. (This is hypothetical, as I will be "assuming" the position of an illiterate anti-gunner for a moment.)
I own a house. One of the "rules" of my house is no firearms allowed, and it is well known by any who would ever come there. If you want to come into my home, you either leave your weapon at home or in the car. Let's say we're friends, and you decide that having a visit with me is something you'd like to do, despite my idiotic rule. So, you and your family come over to spend an evening with me and my family. During the course of our visit we all become the victims of a home invasion, and all of us are injured.
Am I to be held liable in a court of law?
Those of you who answered "yes" to that question should support the part of this bill that would hold business owners liable in a similar circumstance.
My personal answer to businesses that don't allow me to bring a firearm on the premises is to not take my body (or my money) through the door.
Privately-owned businesses do not have the coercive power of the law on their side in creating "gun free zones" to the same degree as the government does. A business can only declare its premises as "gun free"; the government can do so (or at least attempt to do so) for pretty much every place that's outside your front door.
As I said, the part of this proposal with which I disagree is where the private property rights are concerned. As to holding the government accountable in the courts, I'm all for it. That's the change I would make were it in my power to do so.
I own a house. One of the "rules" of my house is no firearms allowed, and it is well known by any who would ever come there. If you want to come into my home, you either leave your weapon at home or in the car. Let's say we're friends, and you decide that having a visit with me is something you'd like to do, despite my idiotic rule. So, you and your family come over to spend an evening with me and my family. During the course of our visit we all become the victims of a home invasion, and all of us are injured.
Am I to be held liable in a court of law?
Those of you who answered "yes" to that question should support the part of this bill that would hold business owners liable in a similar circumstance.
My personal answer to businesses that don't allow me to bring a firearm on the premises is to not take my body (or my money) through the door.
Privately-owned businesses do not have the coercive power of the law on their side in creating "gun free zones" to the same degree as the government does. A business can only declare its premises as "gun free"; the government can do so (or at least attempt to do so) for pretty much every place that's outside your front door.
As I said, the part of this proposal with which I disagree is where the private property rights are concerned. As to holding the government accountable in the courts, I'm all for it. That's the change I would make were it in my power to do so.
Thairlar, I love those restaurant arguements that hold no water. In that case, lack of clothing or shoes could pose a health risk. You may be more likely to spread bacteria beyond your control. Clothes prevent things from leaving your body. You have no right to walk around naked, but you do have a right, enumerated in the Constitution, to keep and bear arms. Why? To defend ones life.
The purpose of government is to defend rights. The ability to defend ones life is a right, derived directly from the right to life. Property rights do not extend to violating other peoples property rights, similarly they do not extend to violating other peoples right to defend their lives.
This is not difficult to understand. I could see how carrying a rifle onto someones property would be crossing a line, because you'd more than likely have to put the rifle down somewhere requiring the consent of the property owner. But a concealed firearm that NEVER leaves your person is part of you.
Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with holding property owners liable if they disarm you and you are injured by a perp in an otherwise preventable crime.
The purpose of government is to defend rights. The ability to defend ones life is a right, derived directly from the right to life. Property rights do not extend to violating other peoples property rights, similarly they do not extend to violating other peoples right to defend their lives.
This is not difficult to understand. I could see how carrying a rifle onto someones property would be crossing a line, because you'd more than likely have to put the rifle down somewhere requiring the consent of the property owner. But a concealed firearm that NEVER leaves your person is part of you.
Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with holding property owners liable if they disarm you and you are injured by a perp in an otherwise preventable crime.