Michigan Bill Would Put Gun-Free Zone On The Hook For Injuries

[GOYABEAN]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the authorities have no duty to protect you as an individual. The police’s job is to protect society as a whole, not you as a person. Honestly, that’s fine with me. While I respect police officers, by and large, I also recognize that the only way they could protect me as a person is to walk side-by-side with me all the time and I’m someone who likes my privacy.

Where this becomes a problem, though, is in gun-free zones.

In these places, which the law prohibits people from carrying firearms for their own protection, people are still responsible for their own safety despite the government neutering their ability to do so. The best example was Parkland where police failed to act yet no one inside was legally allowed to possess the means to fight back.

Now, a Michigan bill seeks to fix this issue.

A Republican state representative has introduced legislation that would hold government offices and private businesses liable if anyone is injured during a shooting in a gun-free zone on their premises.

State Rep. Gary Eisen, R-St. Clair Township, introduced House Bill 4975, which would revoke governmental immunity from lawsuits arising from injuries sustained on government property where guns are banned. Eisen is also the sponsor of House Bill 4976, which would make a government, business or individual that designates a property a gun-free zone responsible for the safety of individuals who enter it.

Eisen said the intention was to require a business or government that enforces a gun-free policy to take responsibility through measures like hiring security guards.

“I have to presume that no one will have a gun inside and I will be safe,” Eisen said. “They are telling me, ‘Don’t worry, Mr. Eisen, this is a gun-free zone. You’ll be perfectly safe in here.’ We know that is not the case.”

Eisen said by not allowing him to carry a gun, government and companies that declare their property a gun-free zone could be held liable under his bills.

Michigan Bill Would Put Gun-Free Zone On The Hook For Injuries

 

[Jmac00]

LOVE THE IDEA, But I doubt it will ever pass. I hope it passes, but I have my doubts

 

[GOYABEAN]

LOVE THE IDEA, But I doubt it will ever pass. I hope it passes, but I have my doubts

FUCK that if we now have sanctuary city's and open borders and saying illegal aliens gets you fined or locked up I say FUCK THEM ALL

 

[BDinPutnam]

Thumbs down.

Do I have a duty to protect you in my house if you come over (very, very simple version, I grant you)?

 

[GOPerfect]

I am against this bill.

 

[Acer-m14]

it was all good up until ..

Eisen said the intention was to require a business or government that enforces a gun-free policy to take responsibility through measures like hiring security guards.

if the LEO have no duty .. why do they hummm ????

or does the biz have to hire enough guards to escort every customer / visitor .. ect .. ??

 

[BDinPutnam]

it was all good up until ..



if the LEO have no duty .. why do they hummm ????

or does the biz have to hire enough guards to escort every customer / visitor .. ect .. ??

Because this isn't a public safety policy, it's an employment policy.

 

[vanderblack]

If this passes, the next bill will be to hold gun manufacturers liable for shootings. This way they can pay injury claims. Really bad idea.

 

[camper4lyfe]

Thumbs down.

Do I have a duty to protect you in my house if you come over (very, very simple version, I grant you)?

Do you deem your home a gun free zone?

 

[GOPerfect]

Do you deem your home a gun free zone?

Most of us here do not have Gun Free zones in our homes, but if I did, that would not mean that I would be tasked to protect a visitor to my home.

 

[camper4lyfe]

Most of us here do not have Gun Free zones in our homes, but if I did, that would not mean that I would be tasked to protect a visitor to my home.

That's my point. There's no gun free zones here.

I haven't read the bill, but I'd assume this relates to public companies, not private residences anyway.

 

[GOPerfect]

I am against bills like this for many reasons...

No one, nor and business has the duty to protect me. Businesses have a duty to keep me safe while in their store, ie. safe shelving, signs telling me there is a wet floor and the such. That is where it ends.

If they have no weapons policies, so be it, I have the Right not to enter or to break their rules/policies.

 

[spat]

I am against bills like this for many reasons...

No one, nor and business has the duty to protect me. Businesses have a duty to keep me safe while in their store, ie. safe shelving, signs telling me there is a wet floor and the such. That is where it ends.

If they have no weapons policies, so be it, I have the Right not to enter or to break their rules/policies.

It's proven that gun free zones attract mass shooters like shit attracts flies.

By declaring their establishment a gun free zone they are creating a hazardous environment just like a wet floor. The danger from a wet floor can be mitigated if you are aware of it (i.e. proper signage, etc...) Likewise if you are going to create a hazard with a gun free zone in a public place you have a duty to mitigate that danger with armed guards and metal detectors.

Your house isn't a public venue, so a different standard should apply.

 

[BDinPutnam]

@spat if you know it is a gun free zone that is then, by your logic, your warning in the same way a "wet floor" sign is your warning. I see absolutely no reason why a store should have a duty to protect you from criminals regardless of whether they are a gun free zone or not.

 

[Grimscale]

If they have no weapons policies, so be it, I have the Right not to enter or to break their rules/policies.

Except you usually have little choice but to enter .gov buildings.
The usual reasons people enter them is not available in other venues that might be more friendly to personal protection.

 

[Celt]

Thumbs down.

Do I have a duty to protect you in my house if you come over (very, very simple version, I grant you)?

You are not a business.

I agree with this legislation. If a business open to the public is going to not allow you to exercise your constitutional rights to self defense then they have a duty to provide equal protection. That means armed security guards.

Of course there will be those who say just don't shop there, I get that and I practice that as much as possible. However, sometimes there are no other options for items that you need, and you are forced to shop in a place without the tools you feel necessary to protect yourself and your family.

 

[Celt]

I am against bills like this for many reasons...

No one, nor and business has the duty to protect me. Businesses have a duty to keep me safe while in their store, ie. safe shelving, signs telling me there is a wet floor and the such. That is where it ends.

If they have no weapons policies, so be it, I have the Right not to enter or to break their rules/policies.

Should businesses have no duty to provide other life safety measures like fire suppression systems, or emegency exits? How about health code requirements?

 

[GOPerfect]

Should businesses have no duty to provide other life safety measures like fire suppression systems, or emegency exits? How about health code requirements?

Touché

 

[Celt]

@spat if you know it is a gun free zone that is then, by your logic, your warning in the same way a "wet floor" sign is your warning. I see absolutely no reason why a store should have a duty to protect you from criminals regardless of whether they are a gun free zone or not.

Because they are denying law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves.

 

[Celt]

Touché

Only trying to offer another line of thinking.

I would prefer to have less government involvement in every aspect of life, but since it seems like we're stuck with it in many ways this is one avenue that could benefit those of us that believe in the right to self-defense.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Part of self defense is situational awareness.

 

[Darth]

100% oppose for private business.

100% support for public entities.

 

[Darth]

Should businesses have no duty to provide other life safety measures like fire suppression systems, or emegency exits? How about health code requirements?

They should have no duty.

 

[Celt]

They should have no duty.

I understand and respect your position, i just disagree on this one.

 

[Darth]

I understand and respect your position, i just disagree on this one.

I'm hardcore personal responsibility and freedom. I prefer the government stay out of it.

 

[Celt]

I'm hardcore personal responsibility and freedom. I prefer the government stay out of it.

I know you are, and for the vast majority of things I am too. Just not everything.

 

[Darth]

I know you are, and for the vast majority of things I am too. Just not everything.

I'm still looking for that thing that government does better than the free market.

Coming up dry so far.

 

[Celt]

I'm still looking for that thing that government does better than the free market.

Coming up dry so far.

I hear you, I guess where I make an exception is that we are losing BADLY with the 2a, and if we can get some help from the same gov thats been hurting us we can creep forward a little.

If this law were to be passed i bet that MOST businesses would then allow people to carry rather than pay for armed security (their choice), this would incrementally move us forward on gun rights.

Since we have nothing else helping us, by way of Congress, on doing away with any of the more than 23,000 gun control laws on the books, I suppose I would take what I can get for right now as long as it feels like we're moving forward.

I am just way beyond frustrated with the current state of things.

 

[Darth]

I hear you, I guess where I make an exception is that we are losing BADLY with the 2a, and if we can get some help from the same gov thats been hurting us we can creep forward a little.

If this law were to be passed i bet that MOST businesses would then allow people to carry rather than pay for armed security (their choice), this would incrementally move us forward on gun rights.

Since we have nothing else helping us, by way of Congress, on doing away with any of the more than 23,000 gun control laws on the books, I suppose I would take what I can get for right now as long as it feels like we're moving forward.

I am just way beyond frustrated with the current state of things.

I stand by my principles even when the end result doesn’t favor me.

 

[Celt]

I stand by my principles even when the end result doesn’t favor me.

As do I, Im just not a strict libertarian in my principles. My standards arent as black and white as yours, I have always believed in a gray area between them. Frankly, its probably easier to just see the black and white as determining the gray area can be difficult at times.