A Michigan bill would put liability for mass shootings in “gun free zones” on those posting the zone:
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.
“If they don’t want to be liable, then don’t put the sign in the window,” Eisen said……part of the rationale for his bill lies with a report that 98% of mass public shootings happen in gun-free zones. The Washington Post reported that President Donald Trump recited that statistic in a May 4 speech to the National Rifle Association.
The Washington Post said the figure comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center’s updated 2014 report. That report stated that 98.4 percent of mass shootings from 1950 to July 10, 2016, happened in gun-free zones.
“We call them killing zones, not gun-free zones,” Eisen said.
I doubt it’ll pass – Michigan Republicans don’t want to send soccer moms running away in tears -and there’s legal reasons such a law might be struck down in court (legal technicalities like a plaintiff needing to show banning guns makes shopping unreasonably unsafe, as well as showing that a particular plaintiff or patron would more likely than not have taken down the shooter).
But it’s a start.
I don’t know, Mitch. Michigan is a big sportsman’s state, so it might get support from the masses, especially if they are paying attention to world events, i.e. Venezuela and Hong Kong.
Further, turn about is fair play. If victims can sue the firearm manufacturers over death or injury inflicted by a mentally ill person using one of their products, then why not make the perpetrators of “gun free zones” liable for death or injury within them?
As much as I’d like to (and do) agree with you, boss, on the fair play angle, it’s different when they do it.