Common Sense Gun Legislation I Can Get Behind!

[ChamberedRound]

From the Michael Bane Blog, referencing a gunlaws.com post. Now THIS is legislation we need in PA! Emphasis added by me.

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2007...i-can-get.html

Common Sense Gun Legislation I Can Get Behind!

From GunLaws.com:

Gun-Free Zone Liability Act

Originally introduced in Arizona as The Defenseless Victim Act of 2002, this bill recognizes that gun-free zones, recklessly made and typically with no alternative security provided, are known to be extremely dangerous.

We have seen this (when the bill was first introduced) in the Wakefield, Mass., slayings, the Luby's Massacre, and even the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, where pilots and passengers were defenseless, in the false name of security. Congress responded to that with the "Arm The Pilots" law.

The death toll from gun-free zones continues to mount, with the 2007 Virginia Tech slaughter of helpless students and faculty, and at a Christmastime massacre that year in an Omaha shopping mall. The mall had "no guns allowed" signs to keep out FBI-certified citizens with CCW permits. The murderer, as in all such cases, disobeyed the signs. The news media continues to suppress stories where armed individuals stop such mayhem. See for example, The Bias Against Guns, by John Lott, for numerous egregious examples. You can also read this eloquent gun-bias editorial online.

The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act basically says that, in public places, if you create a dangerous gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes. There is no cost or budget item associated with enacting this bill.

The idea that gun-free zones are safe is fraudulent.

It is a mythology perpetrated by anti-rights activists who can often be recognized by their beliefs that:

1 - self defense should be illegal,
2 - guns should be confiscated,
3 - no one but "authorities" should have guns,
4 - government can take care of you better than you can.

The anti-self-defense lobby would tell you to rely upon the police for your safety, but they always omit the inconvenient facts that:

1 - police have no legal duty to protect you;
2 - they routinely respond only after an event to pick up the pieces;
3 - when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

I wonder if it might be possible to really get this on the table (it has been seriously discussed in Arizona and Georgia legislatures). As theauthors note, even forcing the concept of gun-free zone liability intothe general discourse would have an excellent effect — public property owners would start thinking in terms of civil liability as well as criminal liability.

If I am ever involved in a mass shooting in a place where I am forbidden to have my legal gun, you can bet I will be filing a spectacular lawsuit against the property owner, all the associated businesses on the property, every single corporate entity involved, plus their spouses, pets, kitchen appliances and anything else I can think of.

I think it is appalling that the MSM continue to parade their antigun bias...read David Hardy's Arms & the Law reporting. The newspapers and electronic media should be trumpeting that an armed civilian stopped a madman's slaughter...but that would go against their deeply held religious belief that we are all incapable of protecting ourselves and need Big Brother 24/7.

UPDATE...from the Denver Post this AM, two other male church members with CCWs drew theirguns but apparently froze:

Near an entryway in the church, Bourbonnais came upon the gunman and an armed male church security guard who was there with his gun drawn but not firing, he said. [Larry Bourbonnais is a Vietnam vet who, like Jeanne Assam, ran toward the sound of gunfire]

Bourbonnais said he pleaded with the armed guard to give him his weapon.

"Give me your handgun. I've been in combat, and I'm going to take this guy out," Bourbonnais recalled telling the guard. "He kept yelling, 'Get behind me! Get behind me!' He wouldn't hand me his weapon, but he wouldn't do anything."

There was an additional armed security guard there, another man, who also didn't fire, Bourbonnais said.

Compare this to Assam, who walked toward the shooter, firing as she walked and shouting repeatedly, "Surrender! Surrender!"

As I have said repeatedly, it is truly impossible to look in the rearview mirror at a chaos event. It's easy to say what we might have done, because we weren't there. I do think it is worth a broadbrush after-action report:

1) Jeanne Assam went to cover at the sound of the first shot (as she said in her CNN-reported press conference).
2) She quickly realized she was in an "active shooter" situation, which totally changed her mindset and her tactics. Instead of "go to cover and defend" — the most basic self-defense tactic — she shifted to "engage and attack" — the only response to an active shooter surrounded by targets.
3) She broke cover and engaged the active shooter.
4) She also verbally engaged the shooter, which served two purposes — it gave the shooter the chance to live, and it distracted him from his deadly rampage. We should also note that the unarmed Larry Bourbonnaise also verbally engaged the shooter, which got Bourbonnaise wounded but bought time for Assam.
5) Assam shot on the move.
6) She apparently kept firing until the threat was neutralized. I have seen it reported that she fired 10-12 shots in the encounter.

I can't speculate on the two armed men who didn't engage...we simply don't have enough information. I will say that violent encounters in reality are never what a person imagines them to be beforehand. That is what we train. And train and train. Assam is a former LEO,so I am making the assumption that she had at least academy training.

[Agent Smith]

I think it would be a safe bet to say that we could all get behind that one!

[MarcS]

lets get them to vote on it before the black caucus comes back from their "vacation"

[Eugene V. Debs]

Oppose this on tactical grounds. Would drive proprietors of businesses (who may not want guns on their property but could care less about carry rights on the street) into the arms of the Brady Campaign. Get the gun-free zones repealed through direct action (petitions, demonstrations, pickets, letters, consumer boycotts) not through legislation that business owners will view as an assault on their property rights and lead to a backlash against gun-rights advocates.

I think gun-rights advocates have fallen into the same trap as the Liberals they often criticize-- thinking electoral action and legislative reform is the be-all and end-all of a political movement. These are rights we are talking about. The Abolitionists and Civil Rights Era activists didn't just rely on voting in the right legislators, getting the right laws passed and sending in some letters to the editor. They did all that, but realized this was a broad-based social struggle they were engaging in and had to use every tactic they could to create a movement for a more just and moral society-- a society that would respect the rights they were fighting for as a given.

Gun-rights advocates should adopt the same mentality. We need to go beyond electoral action and preaching to the choir. We need to organize at the grassroots and start targeting our message towards the "unbelievers"-- at least those who can be swayed. We need to take to the streets and make this a moral crusade in the very communities most affected by violence. Because this hasn't been happening, we've ceded that ground to the anti-gun forces. The Million Mom March gets people demonstrating in the street-- we don't. Cease Fire PA and organizations like it recruit people from the inner cities to tell their stories of losing loved ones to gun violence, then spin it and use it for their authoriarian agenda. They've recruited the pastors in these neighborhoods and have staked out the moral high ground.

There's no reason that without a good organizing program and diligence we can't do the same and gain the moral high ground by putting the real issue into stark relief-- "The gun control forces want to leave the very communties most affected by gun violence compelety defenseless. This is wrong. It is a violation of people's rights and rich white Liberal reformers are cynically and paternalistically using the Black working-class to further an immoral agenda". But we're too myopic, insular and just plain damn stubborn to do it. This must change otherwise we will always be on the defensive, especially in the urban Northeast.

[MarcS]

An assault on property rights of business owners would be making a law that says they can't choose to not allow guns in their stores. This simply opens them up to be sued civilly.

[Eugene V. Debs]

An assault on property rights of business owners would be making a law that says they can't choose to not allow guns in their stores. This simply opens them up to be sued civilly.

I didn't say it IS an assault on their property rights, but that's how many may VIEW it. Whether it really is or not is irrelevant in my mind-- the perception is what matters, and the question is "Is it tactically wise to risk a backlash by business owners by enacting such legislation?" I don't think it is. All the Brady Campaign has to do is stake out a position against the legislation and start soliciting business owners for contributions. I believe direct action tactics are a better and safer method for getting rid of "gun free zones" on private property than legislation of any kind. Just my opinion.

[MarcS]

well, it doesn't have to be made a law since they're already civilly liable...just i don't believe anyone has tested it.