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 hope this is true. Any chance you have some references, sir?
Texas Penal Code Sec 30.06... (For Texas). Check your State Penal Code.
You do know that the ONLY people who are even aware of "Gun Free Zones" are the gun nuts, right?
This user is currently being ignored
Yeah I'm sure that's their top of their list. It's WHERE they can kill not WHO they can kill.
So it's not the zones, it's the guns?
But we knew that already, didn't we?
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.
because there are not black market guns, ways of making powerful bombs, or mass stabbings with kitchen knives (Franklin Regional Stabbing)
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.
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...
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.
EXCELLENT question. I say Yes!
Credit to Milk.
I saw and loved Milk's polls, but this twist is unique to you! :o)
They were denied their constitutional right to protect themselves.
No, those families weren't 'forced' into being defenseless; they made the choice to visit the mall voluntarily.
I think you would have a better argument with a public school but even then you still aren't required to go after 16.
I must be missing those checkpoints and patdowns when I go to the Gap.
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.
As long as they were there completely voluntarily.
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.
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...
Comments: Add Comment