The vast majority of mass-shootings occur in gun-free zones. That is not an accident or a coincidence. It is by design.
Why? Because the sick individuals who commit such heinous acts are looking for a way to accumulate a large casualty count. That is hard to do in an area where an individual, or many individuals, may respond by pulling their concealed weapon and return fire, potentially neutralizing the threat. So how are we protected in these environments? We aren’t. But maybe there is hope, at least for the people of Michigan.
Ironically, the only people who abide by the gun-free zone signs are the ones that are following the laws to begin with.
A 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 legally 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.
Why not? If politicians can seek to have weapons manufacturers and gun shop owners held liable for what a bad guy does with a gun, surely we can seek to hold gun-free zone owners responsible for not allowing us our Constitutional right to defend ourselves and our families.
Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans? It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice. Check it out today.
There are those who agree with this bill and are taking gun-free zones to task. Quoting an excerpt from BearingArms.com:
‘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 stillresponsible 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.
If I’m legally liable for bringing my gun into a gun-free zone
then the creator of that gun-free zone should be legally liable for my injuries if I’m attacked while unarmed
Liability is a 2 way street
Start suing these places for infringing on your civil rights!!
— Rogan O’Handley (@DC_Draino) October 3, 2019
If you’re going to disarm law-abiding citizens, you should be required to assume responsibility for keeping them safe. You need to guarantee their safety while on the premises–and not just within the building, but also outside the building between the door and their vehicle where, one would assume, they can re-arm themselves–or they should be allowed to take care of their safety themselves.
So far, there are only two co-sponsors on the bill from what I can see, though that might well change. If you’re in Michigan, you may want to reach out to your House representative and tell them you want them to co-sponsor this bill.
After all, if you’re going to be forced to disarm yourself to someone else can have the illusion of safety, the least they can do is put their money where their mouth is. If “gun-free zone” signs are effective, then it shouldn’t matter if they’re liable for injuries, right? Of course, we all know better. More importantly, though, they know better too, which is why I promise you that none of the gun control groups are going to say anything close to support for this bill.
If you’re not going to keep me safe, then at the very least get out of my way when I try to keep me and mine safe.’
It is time that we address the issue of societal and governmental barriers to protecting ourselves in the public domain. Perhaps this Michigan bill is the right start.
- READ: REP. TLAIB TO DETROIT POLICE: YOU SHOULD ONLY HIRE ANALYSTS FOR FACIAL RECOGNITION IF THEY’RE BLACK