On the Flip Side of Arizona SB 1625 is Arizona SB 1664: Gun-Free Zone Liability

[JAL]

This bill is an interesting concept that a gun-free zone incurs responsibility for protection and liability for failing that protection.

Synopsis:

Notwithstanding any other law, a government entity that establishes a gun-free zone is liable for any damages claimed by a person who was harmed by criminal conduct in the gun-free zone if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the person defend against the criminal conduct.

Link to article about it is here:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/arizona-senate-bill-1664-gun-free-zone-liability/

John

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Good! I especially liked this comment:

"If any private or government entity regulates through prohibition your Constitutional right to bear arms, then it is logical to assume that private or government entity is providing sufficient security protections to ensure your safety."

Even though in states like Indiana, "No Guns Allowed" signs for private entities carry no force of law (other than trespassing if you refuse to comply), they should be held liable for the safety of their customers or visitors to their facility, if they fail to allow people to protect themselves. Laws like this might help curb some of the ridiculous "rules" once they realize that their insurance rates might go up if they fail to provide adequate security.

 

[JettaKnight]

Good! I especially liked this comment:

"If any private or government entity regulates through prohibition your Constitutional right to bear arms, then it is logical to assume that private or government entity is providing sufficient security protections to ensure your safety."

Even though in states like Indiana, "No Guns Allowed" signs for private entities carry no force of law (other than trespassing if you refuse to comply), they should be held liable for the safety of their customers or visitors to their facility, if they fail to allow people to protect themselves. Laws like this might help curb some of the ridiculous "rules" once they realize that their insurance rates might go up if they fail to provide adequate security.

Define "adequate security".

I hate GFZ, but letting insurance co. and courts decide about what a business owner is and is not responsible sounds like an utter nightmare.


If the result is that there's a surge in metal detector installations, that's not a good thing as far as I'm concerned.



EDIT: I'm surprised that Arizona doesn't have preemption laws and allows for govt entities to create GFZs.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Notwithstanding any other law, a government entity that establishes a gun-free zone is liable for any damages claimed by a person who was harmed by criminal conduct in the gun-free zone if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the person defend against the criminal conduct.

Wonder if this would include the walk to and from your vehicle as well as while you were in the building? That is, like in most court houses here, inside the building is a GFZ but the parking lot and sidewalks upto the metal detectors are not. It seems reasonable, if a requirement is made, then if visitor is going to be expected to disarm to enter the building, then that “adequate security” should also extend to the moment I exit my vehicle to the time the door shuts (when I’m leaving).

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Define "adequate security".

I hate GFZ, but letting insurance co. and courts decide about what a business owner is and is not responsible sounds like an utter nightmare.


If the result is that there's a surge in metal detector installations, that's not a good thing as far as I'm concerned.



EDIT: I'm surprised that Arizona doesn't have preemption laws and allows for govt entities to create GFZs.

And it should be an utter nightmare. You know what's not an utter nightmare? Allowing people that can legally carry to be able to carry.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Wonder if this would include the walk to and from your vehicle as well as while you were in the building? That is, like in most court houses here, inside the building is a GFZ but the parking lot and sidewalks upto the metal detectors are not. It seems reasonable, if a requirement is made, then if visitor is going to be expected to disarm to enter the building, then that “adequate security” should also extend to the moment I exit my vehicle to the time the door shuts (when I’m leaving).

^^^This^^^ Unless they're going to provide a secure facility to check your firearm when you enter the building, then they should provide security to and from your vehicle.