|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
WI: GOP lawmaker plans bill holding gun-free businesses liable for firearm injuries
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Republican state lawmaker said he plans to introduce a bill that would hold gun-free zone businesses legally liable for injuries inflicted by weapons banned on their property.
Rep. Bob Gannon, R-Slinger, who has been an outspoken critic of gun-free zones, said the bill gives citizens a better chance of defending themselves and their loved ones.
"When we have 49 deaths and 50-some injuries in Orlando, to think that we could not have saved one life there is silly," he said.
Under current law, businesses that allow concealed carry are not held liable for injuries inflicted by weapons legally carried onto their premises. Gannon's proposal would add that gun-free businesses would be held liable. |
| Comment by:
jac
(6/25/2016)
|
We need this on the federal level.
Or how about a bill that prohibits victim disarmament zones. This already exists in some states.
Pennsylvania for example only prohibits firearms in kindergarten through 12th grade schools, court houses, and prisons. There are no laws prohibiting concealed carry in malls, bars, banks, or other businesses. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/25/2016)
|
I'm presuming that "weapons legally carried onto their premises" should read "weapons illegally carried onto their premises".
But since this is a liberal hit piece and liberals are famous for using confusing references to advance their causes, one never knows. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
