Idea for a new law on "Gun Free" Zones

[ziggy]

My idea is fairly simple. New Indiana law: {No one who controls a property that is generally open to the public may designate that property as a "gun free" property unless they actually screen with metal detectors and security personnel all persons coming onto the premises.}

Almost every multi-victim shooting in a public place has occurred at a place that was a "gun free" location. People who enter a "gun free" zone have a reasonable expectation that it is in fact a gun free zone so lets make them go to the trouble of assuring the public that it is gun free, or else take down the sign and stop the illusion that you are safe because they made it "gun free."

I'm interested in hearing what INGO folks think of this idea. Good? Bad? Dumb? Other?

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

My idea is fairly simple. New Indiana law: {No one who controls a property that is generally open to the public may designate that property as a "gun free" property unless they actually screen with metal detectors and security personnel all persons coming onto the premises.}

Almost every multi-victim shooting in a public place has occurred at a place that was a "gun free" location. People who enter a "gun free" zone have a reasonable expectation that it is in fact a gun free zone so lets make them go to the trouble of assuring the public that it is gun free, or else take down the sign and stop the illusion that you are safe because they made it "gun free."

I'm interested in hearing what INGO folks think of this idea. Good? Bad? Dumb? Other?

I would rather see the "gun free" delusion disappear but if not what you suggesting would be a better solution then what's currently in place.. I for one would like our schools to have detectors, armed guards/police, trained armed teachers etc

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I would rather see the "gun free" delusion disappear but if not what you suggesting would be a better solution then what's currently in place.. I for one would like our schools to have detectors, armed guards/police, trained armed teachers etc

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I wish people would stop "raising" psychotic kids. Call me crazy. (But not psychotic)

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

I wish people would stop "raising" psychotic kids. Call me crazy. (But not psychotic)

That would be nice but I dont think that's going to happen. Law of entropy seems to apply universally to everything.. in other words I'm afraid it can only get worse. Human kind doesnt have a very good track record when you look at the grand scheme of it all. From the dawn of time there has been wickedness and horror..

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[EricG]

Instead of suing Armalite or Bushmaster, how about they go after these places in court?

 

[cbhausen]

I have NO “reasonable expectation” that ANY so-called “gun free zone” is indeed “gun free”. Nor should the OP (or anyone else for that matter).

I once asked a lone unarmed security guard manning a metal detector at a sporting event if he realized that if someone wanted to kill a bunch of people he he would simply be the first one shot in the way in. The look on his face was priceless.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

I have NO “reasonable expectation” that ANY so-called “gun free zone” is indeed “gun free”. Nor should the OP (or anyone else for that matter).

I once asked a lone unarmed security guard manning a metal detector at a sporting event if he realized that if someone wanted to kill a bunch of people he he would simply be the first one shot in the way in. The look on his face was priceless.

Cant argue with that. I really think the best way people can be helped to protect themselves is for people to be equipped to protect themselves. No law has ever stopped crime.. all laws can do is assign a punishment to a given action. No laws have EVER rendered a dangerous person harmless, In fact more times than not these days only leave innocent people helpless.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[BugI02]

My idea is fairly simple. New Indiana law: {No one who controls a property that is generally open to the public may designate that property as a "gun free" property unless they actually screen with metal detectors and security personnel all persons coming onto the premises.}

Almost every multi-victim shooting in a public place has occurred at a place that was a "gun free" location. People who enter a "gun free" zone have a reasonable expectation that it is in fact a gun free zone so lets make them go to the trouble of assuring the public that it is gun free, or else take down the sign and stop the illusion that you are safe because they made it "gun free."

I'm interested in hearing what INGO folks think of this idea. Good? Bad? Dumb? Other?

IMO ineffective. It makes the guy with the wand the first target, and the killing just starts earlier and if it's gun free the security peeps likely are not armed. Result, just as many dead, they're just closer to the door

 

[DoggyDaddy]

IMO ineffective. It makes the guy with the wand the first target, and the killing just starts earlier and if it's gun free the security peeps likely are not armed. Result, just as many dead, they're just closer to the door

Have to have armed guards for that to work.

ETA: My mom is pretty much like the lady on the left (when mom was younger).

 

[Denny347]

My idea is fairly simple. New Indiana law: {No one who controls a property that is generally open to the public may designate that property as a "gun free" property unless they actually screen with metal detectors and security personnel all persons coming onto the premises.}

Almost every multi-victim shooting in a public place has occurred at a place that was a "gun free" location. People who enter a "gun free" zone have a reasonable expectation that it is in fact a gun free zone so lets make them go to the trouble of assuring the public that it is gun free, or else take down the sign and stop the illusion that you are safe because they made it "gun free."

I'm interested in hearing what INGO folks think of this idea. Good? Bad? Dumb? Other?

Or....or...since we are talking about Indiana here, ignore the sign, carry concealed, and protect yourself. See, no new law needed.

 

[chevyguy]

Not a good idea look at Dicks sporting goods for example, they do not care that they are losing money due to their anti gun attitude. I fell that this would open the flood gates for more companies to go all out, then we can’t go in and shop using the logic of the original poster of this topic, because they will actually stop you it turns around on us that there will be less places to carry and will have to shop online (hiss) and a less safe and less free.

 

[HoughMade]

I like private property rights.

 

[cbhausen]

Or....or...since we are talking about Indiana here, ignore the sign, carry concealed, and protect yourself. See, no new law needed.

Exactly, but this strategy doesn’t work when there are metal detectors at the doors. I’ve actually thought about carrying with one of those Thunderwear or SmartCarry holsters (I call them “Glock jocks”) and when my EDC sets off the metal detector telling him “I have a piercing down there”.

 

[Denny347]

Exactly, but this strategy doesn’t work when there are metal detectors at the doors. I’ve actually thought about carrying with one of those Thunderwear or SmartCarry holsters (I call them “Glock jocks”) and when my EDC sets off the metal detector telling him “I have a piercing down there”.

Then I guess that meets the OP's requirements...again, without a new law

 

[Libertarian01]

An interesting idea and certainly laudable to look for better legal protection.

However, I find Tennessee's solution better: Anyone who creates a gun free zone assumes all legal liability for anyone shot on the property. This gives good counterweight to the argument of insurance companies demanding such designations as they will automatically pay if such signs are put up.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Sigblitz]

Winner.

 

[ziggy]

An interesting idea and certainly laudable to look for better legal protection.

However, I find Tennessee's solution better: Anyone who creates a gun free zone assumes all legal liability for anyone shot on the property. This gives good counterweight to the argument of insurance companies demanding such designations as they will automatically pay if such signs are put up.

Regards,

Doug

Doug, I believe you are proposing a better solution. Do you know if such a law has been proposed in Indiana? My thinking is that we are better off getting rid of gun free zones and one way is to put the financial burden on people who create them - they don't just have the cost of the sign, but cost of actually making sure they are gun free.
Your idea, and the Tennessee law, means that insurance companies will likely get rid of gun free zones - unless they decide to impose the expense on property owners of actually having metal detectors and armed security, which may take us back to my idea but through a different route.

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug, I believe you are proposing a better solution. Do you know if such a law has been proposed in Indiana? My thinking is that we are better off getting rid of gun free zones and one way is to put the financial burden on people who create them - they don't just have the cost of the sign, but cost of actually making sure they are gun free.
Your idea, and the Tennessee law, means that insurance companies will likely get rid of gun free zones - unless they decide to impose the expense on property owners of actually having metal detectors and armed security, which may take us back to my idea but through a different route.

My liking of this law is that it puts the insurance industry in a financial minefield.

Today the general default of all insurance companies is, "You need to make your workplace/storefront/office safe. You will do this by not allowing dangerous items (ie. guns) on the property. This then gives us cover if someone does something bad, because THEY broke the rules and we can argue... lower liability... " I am not a lawyer, let them give better reasons.

But the Tennessee law makes that very decision problematic for the business owner and the insurance company, because now they WILL be paying out the wazoo if they disarm people for no good reason. It makes them think more than twice about how to address the issue of gun control and the kneejerk banning of firearms on the property.

I don't believe this idea has been proposed here in Indiana, but I do hope I am wrong. If so, some kind soul will come along soon and let me know the error of my ways.

Regards,

Doug

 

[2A_Tom]

I actually suggested this years ago when I was a noob and got shot down by the property rights and Libertarian crowd.

Of course those Libertarians are mostly gone.

Not talking about you Doug.

 

[Libertarian01]

I actually suggested this years ago when I was a noob and got shot down by the property rights and Libertarian crowd.

Of course those Libertarians are mostly gone.

Not talking about you Doug.

No problem. I get it. There are a lot of silly libertarians out there. I know. I've met some. There are also a bunch of really great libertarians out there. I've met them.

I don't see it though as infringing on property rights at all. A business owner still has the right under this kind of law to do whatever he/she wants. This law just makes it 100% clear what the repercussions will be if your business denies people their RTKBA on your property. The government isn't forcing them to choose one way or the other, only making one choice far less palatable.

Regards,

Doug