- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is where it gets sticky, indeed. If you are not allowed to bring a weapon onto the private/public property what LAW are you violating? In addition, should someone harm you while on that property, as in the case of the Batman (Joker?) shooting, is that property owner then liable for NOT enforcing the ban? After all, if they (property owner/gov't) do not allow you to defend yourself then are they not liable for allowing you harm for denying your RIGHT to do so? Many states have laws prohibiting being armed in bars and schools, yet provide ZERO security or enforcement. It should work BOTH ways, if you impose the ban then you are responsible for enforcing it, and GUILTY (at least civilly liable) if you do not do so. We see cities, such as Chicago and DC tha prohibit LAWFUL possession of arms yet they take NO responsibility for your protection or strict enforcement of these "gun free zones". Just what penalty would be imposed for one having a gun in their vehicle and how would it be enforced?
Great points. I agree, additional immediate security should be provided if firearms are prohibited. I think making that law would severely discourage employers from restricting firearms on their property. Why? It costs money to pay security guards.