Show of HandsShow of Hands

DerekWills June 2nd, 2014 11:52am

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?

6 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

MachoMatt84 Mountain climbing
06/02/14 11:44 am

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...

Reply
MachoMatt84 Mountain climbing
06/02/14 11:46 am

... 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.

truantics Connecticut
06/02/14 4:06 pm

I hope this is true. Any chance you have some references, sir?

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/02/14 4:23 pm

Texas Penal Code Sec 30.06... (For Texas). Check your State Penal Code.

suppressedID no Trump is best Trump
06/02/14 7:13 am

You do know that the ONLY people who are even aware of "Gun Free Zones" are the gun nuts, right?

Reply
Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/02/14 7:19 am

This user is currently being ignored

suppressedID no Trump is best Trump
06/02/14 7:22 am

Yeah I'm sure that's their top of their list. It's WHERE they can kill not WHO they can kill.
:-/

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/02/14 7:46 am

This user is currently being ignored

suppressedID no Trump is best Trump
06/02/14 8:45 am

So it's not the zones, it's the guns?

But we knew that already, didn't we?

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/02/14 9:10 am

This user is currently being ignored

suppressedID no Trump is best Trump
06/02/14 9:23 am

You spouting hate, rage, or baseball stats, without a gun, are amusing.

You spouting hate, rage, or baseball stats, with a gun, are a threat to society.

I'm sure you can handle the logic, even if you won't admit it.

goalie31 Byzantine Catholic
06/02/14 9:25 am

because there are not black market guns, ways of making powerful bombs, or mass stabbings with kitchen knives (Franklin Regional Stabbing)

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/02/14 9:26 am

This user is currently being ignored

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/02/14 9:27 am

This user is currently being ignored

suppressedID no Trump is best Trump
06/02/14 9:38 am

Umm...it was a fictional example, not targeted at you.

The point was, the gun makes the difference. Not a sign. Not a zone. Not a lone individual.

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/02/14 10:12 am

This user is currently being ignored

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/02/14 11:11 am

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...

MrMilkdud jackass whisperer
06/02/14 6:38 am

It's private property, so the mall has the right to restrict guns.

But they can sue the mall for failing to protect them after placing them in an unsafe situation.

Reply
TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
06/02/14 6:17 am

EXCELLENT question. I say Yes!

Reply
TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
06/02/14 11:11 am

I saw and loved Milk's polls, but this twist is unique to you! :o)

rickvee Living the dream
06/02/14 5:54 am

They were denied their constitutional right to protect themselves.

Reply
Posco Not here for socializing
06/02/14 5:38 am

No, those families weren't 'forced' into being defenseless; they made the choice to visit the mall voluntarily.

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/02/14 5:53 am

This user is currently being ignored

Posco Not here for socializing
06/02/14 6:10 am

I think you would have a better argument with a public school but even then you still aren't required to go after 16.

MadCow former trumper
06/02/14 8:01 am

I must be missing those checkpoints and patdowns when I go to the Gap.

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/02/14 8:23 am

This user is currently being ignored

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/02/14 4:57 am

This user is currently being ignored

Liberty 4,032,064
06/02/14 4:55 am

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.

Liberty 4,032,064
06/02/14 4:55 am

As long as they were there completely voluntarily.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/02/14 5:35 am

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.

Liberty 4,032,064
06/02/14 5:40 am

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.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/02/14 5:43 am

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.

Liberty 4,032,064
06/02/14 5:46 am

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.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/02/14 5:49 am

Not really. Watching your friend die in front of you is emotional trauma that she would not have experienced had others been allowed to carry...