Inspired by MrMilkdud: A shooting at a gun free zone (let's say a mall) has left 6 families without their loved ones and dozens of other victims mentally scarred. Would those affected have a case against the mall for insisting they be defenseless?
Fun fact: you can legally carry a weapon in a place or business that prohibits guns IF it's not specifically against state law. If you are caught with a weapon (if it's concealed properly it shouldn't happen) they can only kick you out and put you...
... on a list prohibiting you from patronizing that store. Failure to leave when asked or to enter the store when specifically told not to can then be charged as trespassing. However, they can't charge you for the gun if there is no legal basis.
I'm a bad guy. I want to kill a lot of people. Should I go to a.) a school where the carrying of firearms is prohibited, or b.) a public park where anyone else could have a gun to shoot back with..... Hmmm...
If they would have otherwise been carrying, yes. But, they went in knowing the conditions of entry, so ultimately they're still responsible for that decision.
Now let's say Sally doesn't carry a gun because she is 19. She had no desires prior to this to carry a gun. But now that she watched her best friend's head gets blown off, she understands that had SOMEONE had a firearm, she would still be alive.
I'd say that's quite a stretch. By that logic, if she was in a place where you can carry, she could sue anyone that has a permit but simply forgot or for some reason decided not to carry that day.
Ehhhhhh that's a stretch. There's not a legit case against someone for NOT exercising their rights. There is a far better case of a private business barring people from exercising the same.
That's what I'm saying. She could sue for a restriction placed on *her,* but I don't think she should be able to sue for a restriction placed on someone else when she wasn't even injured. She's completely a third party in the example.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment