Gun-free-zone Liability Act Of 2002

[Zander]

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.

I'm sorry, Bob...this violates one of the most basic tenets of American law.

You'll have to do better.

To your further example...

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?

Well, of course you are...and you should be. [nice transition from private business to private residential property, btw]

It's no different than if your guest has a couple of beers, gets in an argument with another guest, gets pushed in your backyard pool and drowns.

Or is playing football in your front yard and is mowed down by your demented neighbor in her Volvo station wagon because she didn't like his curl route.

You...the property owner...are liable.

It's your property...you are liable. The only solution to your dilemma is to do your very best to attenuate that liability.

Posting a property against those who legally possess and bear arms isn't going to attenuate that liability; it will [and should] exacerbate it. IMO, and as others have noted, this is perpetrating a fraud...suggesting that anyone patronizing your business/govt. office [you name it] is somehow "safer" because you have established a zone free from "gun violence".

Frankly, I'm surprised that such a case hasn't been filed, tried and won already...it's textbook in its simplicity.

Picture this courtroom scene:

**********

The aggrieved widow's lawyer addresses you as the first defense witness in her $100 million wrongful death civil suit: "So, Mr. Locke...is it true that you posted your property to deny the legal carrying of a firearm onto your business premises?"

Mr. Locke: "Yes."

Lawyer: "And exactly what effect did you envision that would have on any criminals using *illegal* carry on your business premises, Mr. Locke?"

[deafening silence ensues]

"Your honor, would you instruct Mr. Locke to answer the question, please."

***********

To recap, the business owner either accepts such liability as a condition of operating a business or sells his property...either before or after his business fails.

And I'll ask my question again:

How, exactly [and please be specific], is this legislation supposed to threaten property rights?

I still don't see it.

 

[RickD]

It's no different than if your guest has a couple of beers, gets in an argument with another guest, gets pushed in your backyard pool and drowns.

If I were on that jury, the plaintiff would get zilch. He is not responsible for another's physical assault during a heated Cleveland Browns keg party.

 

[Bob Locke]

Zander,

If the hypotheticals as you put them are the current law where liability is concerned, then it needs to be changed. The way you put it, even if a homeowner (or business owner, as I personally don't see any difference) allows for concealed, open, or any other type of carry on the premises then the owner is liable for the actions of a third party while on their property. I find that unconscionable.

 

[TexasVet]

It's NOT 3rd party liability!

The liability, and you can ask ANY mall owner, is in failure to provide a safe working or shopping enviornment! How hard is this to understand? It is NOT being liable for the actions of a scumbag doper hi-jacker, it is being liable for failure of the store owner to safeguard his customers to the extent required by law and custom.
Every mall and big chain store has rent a cops because they know they will be sucessfully sued if something happens and they DON'T have them. This is not a new thing, guys. These suits have been around as long as there have been lawyers.
You think you wouldn't win if a 3rd party spilled a drink in the aisle of the local supermarket and it didn't get cleaned up in a reasonable time and you broke your arm falling because of it? I repeat, stay out of the business world because you will get eaten alive!