Texas lawmaker wants those with gun free zones held liable after shootings

I could get behind this.

http://www.guns.com/2016/08/11/texas-law...fter-shootings/


The last part, bolded quote from the op-ed which is linked, is a gem. I'm sure the Dallas Morning News "Staff Writer" is on board with holding firearms manufacturers liable!

-Mickey

I'm in.

Oh yeah, why should a business be blamed for gun free zones? But they dang sure want firearms manufacturers to be held accountable.

In

sounds good to me

I am a huge gun rights advocate. I am also a very strong believer in private property rights.

Publicly owned places are a different matter, so I would support that approach in those cases.

But I am dead set against even more laws governing how private property is used.

Marc, what about private property that is a public place like a movie theater or restaurant?

Yup. Whole different ball game when you invite the public in and grant them access. Private property can be kept really private, especially when there's no access to the public.

It'd kinda suck for business use, though.

Most public access businesses have a fire code, handicap law requirements, specialized codes (think health codes for resturants for example), etc. that they have to abide by and even get inspected periodically for.

Create a 'safe space' for some idiot to publicly (and illegally) massacre your customers and you need to be held liable.

Wit the businesses using the excuse of "guns make things more dangerous" maybe they should shoulder the liability. The are not allowing people to protect themselves under the premise that they are safe enough and in fact safer without a firearm. It should be on the business to provide the necessary safety requirements since they are implying that their business is safe to enter. I say make them liable, maybe they will take down their signs then. Otherwise it is on them to provide an environment where a nut job can't shoot the place up.

No different than a hardware store, lumber yard, real estate office, etc. Private property is private property.
Owners should have every right to limit what happens on their own property. We may feel differently, but I also feel that:

A private business should be allowed to eject a disruptive customer.
A private business should not be forced to perform a function that they do not believe in.
A private business should have the ability to control it's own future by virtue of their own decisions.

We certainly do not need more laws telling people how to operate their own company.

It is my assertion that the free market should rule. If I do not like the way I am treated at a business - I do not have to spend my money there.

This is an important "core" concept for our country, and discussion is healthy! You are certainly welcome to challenge my assertions.

Respectfully,
Marc

I agree a property owner has rights. So do I and 1st and foremost is my right to to defend myself and my family.

If you decide to restrict my right as you are able to do as a property owner, then you become responsible for providing security in that location. Generally, I am charged $'s to be in said location (movie theater, restaurant, etc) so my view is that part of that charge is to provide security since you have told me I cannot defend myself.

I agree there are conflicting rights here but if you choose to restrict my rights but fail to provide adequate security--that is your fault.

That has been litigated many times with the overwhelming decisions being that no one forced you to go to a movie theater or a restaurant. You went there on your own free will. This legislation is just government intrusion on the rights of property owners and sadly sounds like something Hillary would come up with. A public place and public property are two completely different things. It's someone else's property.

The whole key is in the thought process of making someone else responsible for one's own safety.

I don't pay any attn. to those signs.....I carry everywhere now.

Is the property owner not responsible for any and all injuries that happen on their property now? I thought that is why we buy insurance.

I think this starts to go against property rights. Better to just boycott said places.

Indeed another fine example of the type of thinking behind the proposed law. Someone else is always responsible, other than oneself.

I agree...

Agreed, and to this I also add smoking. Smoking is a disgusting habit that I am glad I was able to quit, but if a land owner (I didn't say business owner because if the building is leased the owner should be the one to make this rule) wants to allow smoking they should be able to. Now I say this about private property, even ones that have public business's on them. Bars, restaurants so forth. Let the customer decide if they want to spend money there or not. Let the customer decide if they want to go to a business that does not allow guns. I don't go anywhere they will not let me carry.

I agree.

Same here, if I'm not allowed to carry, which is their right. I don't enter, which is my right..

The bill has been filed, along with about 36 others.