We need this in Maryland. Liability of property owners that create gun free zones.

[Doctortoxic]

This right here is the way we fight back against gun free zones.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Will my estate lose standing if I'm gunned down whilst ignoring the stupid sign?

Did I say "my?"

I meant "Asking for a friend."

 

[P-12 Norm]

This right here is the way we fight back against gun free zones.

Years ago, when VA and lots of other states passed Shall Issue, my employer made sure every one knew our offices were Gun Free Zones. I had a direction added to my will that should I ever get taken out by a crazed killer entering into the office, my estate was to sue the living piss out of said employer.
The courts DID force employers to allow employees to store their firearms in their locked vehicles.

 

[hillbilly grandpa]

Advocating for this kind of policy could have some legs--if we mount a campaign beginning with the adjournment of the current MGA session.

 

[davsco]

the problem is, you generally don't have to enter a gun free zone. get another job, don't go to that store, etc.

the real problem arises when the govt requires you to visit (dmv, post office from time to time, etc) and doesn't allow you to bring your own protection. or even parks and the like where your taxes pay for them but you can't carry protection in them.

 

[Cool_Moo5e]

This right here is the way we fight back against gun free zones.

I agree if you want to advertise "gun free" you should be held liable for any damages.

 

[hillbilly grandpa]

For the public sites where, as noted, our taxes go to support, the appropriate public entities should shoulder the liability.

 

[Bob A]

the real problem arises when the govt requires you to visit (dmv, post office from time to time, etc) and doesn't allow you to bring your own protection. or even parks and the like where your taxes pay for them but you can't carry protection in them.

No, the real problem arises when you're forced to defend your life in one of these mandated "gun-free zones" in the absence of official armed protection.

IIRC, the reason certain places can prohibit carrying arms is because the government (or the owner) is providing armed protection, in the form of bailiffs, sheriff/LEO etc, which makes them liable for your safety.

"Gun free" in the absence of armed protection is merely a free-fire zone, with no defense against criminal/terror actors.

 

[BurkeM]

IIRC, the reason certain places can prohibit carrying arms is because the government (or the owner) is providing armed protection, in the form of bailiffs, sheriff/LEO etc, which makes them liable for your safety.

Nope. The government isn't responsible for your safety in a GOV building. They deprive you of a right and provide NOTHING in return.

 

[delaware_export]

Iirc Tennessee tried this some time ago. I do not recall if it passed to law or not. Maybe 5?6? Years ago

its been a while

 

[Steel Hunter]

I'd be fine with it. I'd rather just get a federal law making gun free zones unenforceable all together in spaces open to the public.