I was just thinking about how nice it would be if I could carry a firearm anywhere I wanted to. I don't even know if there are any state level laws anywhere that prohibit private no-gun zones but it would surely be nice. Then again, maybe that's too much of an infringement on private property rights like banning smoking in all businesses including bars. Thoughts?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Prohibiting gun free zones: Yea? Nay? Constitutional?
- Thread starter Pyroponce
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Many businesses say that they are gun free because of insurance reasons. Maybe the answer is to require any gun free zone to carry an expensive insurance policy that would be required to pay for anyone injured on their property by someone violation the gun free zone.
numbaonecoltsfan
Marksman
I can't remember but I think someone has done this. Or at least proposed it at a state level
alabasterjar
Sharpshooter
Prohibiting gun free zones on private property, no.
Prohibiting gun free zones on all public property, yes.
Creating liability/can sue laws for gfz on private property, no.
Removing all legal barriers from allowing a lawsuit if injured/harmed on private property because of gfz, yes.
Prohibiting gun free zones on all public property, yes.
Creating liability/can sue laws for gfz on private property, no.
Removing all legal barriers from allowing a lawsuit if injured/harmed on private property because of gfz, yes.
Prohibiting the prohibition of the peaceful exercise of an individual Constitutional right. Sounds Constitutional to me.
You have every right to control your property, but when you allow the public access, then your private property rights do not trump their Constitutional rights.
You have every right to control your property, but when you allow the public access, then your private property rights do not trump their Constitutional rights.
Reflexively, I say "states' rights."
Now, regardless, I think there's room for a civil right of action against a private property owner who creates a property-rights based GFZ but fails to provide adequate protection for invitees. Perhaps even a limitation on sovereign immunity where a state has a law mandating a GFZ but fails to provide adequate protection for the public within that GFZ.
Now, regardless, I think there's room for a civil right of action against a private property owner who creates a property-rights based GFZ but fails to provide adequate protection for invitees. Perhaps even a limitation on sovereign immunity where a state has a law mandating a GFZ but fails to provide adequate protection for the public within that GFZ.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
The Constitution permits private property to be trumped by civil rights.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/515
