GA: Proposed law to make owners of gun free zones liable

[tomtomgt356]

GA: Bill Would Make Property Owners Liable For Injuries In Gun-Free Zones - The Truth About Guns​

A bill introduced in Georgia would hold property owners who restrict lawful residents from carrying on their property liable for harm committed against them.
www.thetruthaboutguns.com


“Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, and who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, or incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct of another person occurring on property where the lawful possession of weapons is prohibited, shall have a cause of action against the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property and causes such prohibition to occur. In addition to damages, the lawful weapons carrier shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.”


I like the idea. We'll see how and if it makes it through the legislature.

 

[bearcreek]

GA: Bill Would Make Property Owners Liable For Injuries In Gun-Free Zones - The Truth About Guns​

A bill introduced in Georgia would hold property owners who restrict lawful residents from carrying on their property liable for harm committed against them.
www.thetruthaboutguns.com


“Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, and who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, or incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct of another person occurring on property where the lawful possession of weapons is prohibited, shall have a cause of action against the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property and causes such prohibition to occur. In addition to damages, the lawful weapons carrier shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.”


I like the idea. We'll see how and if it makes it through the legislature.

On the surface, I like the concept. Fair's fair though, if that is how things are going to be, the property owner should be able to hold the gun carrier liable for damages if they negligently discharge their weapon or use it in a manner that is ruled unjustified. Or perhaps they already can? Don't know.

 

[jmorris]

I'm not sure I like to be told what to do or allow on my own property.

I suppose it will be a cash cow for people that are locked up in GA or does the States exempt themselves. If thats the case, I like it even less...

 

[Kleanbore]

I like the idea. We'll see how and if it makes it through the legislature.

And what the courts do.

I'm doubtful.

Fair's fair though, if that is how things are going to be, the property owner should be able to hold the gun carrier liable for damages if they negligently discharge their weapon or use it in a manner that is ruled unjustified. Or perhaps they already can? Don't know.

Anyone with standing should already be able to be made whole.

I'm not sure I like to be told what to do or allow on my own property.

That will likely be the sticking point.

 

[heyjoe]

perhaps just having this bill apply to publicly accessible private property such as malls, stores, restaurants etc would be more likely to pass in the legislature,and to pass judicial scrutiny than having it apply to private property that is not publicly accessible such as residences, farms, etc

 

[Atavar]

What does this mean for properties mandated by state or federal to be gun free? Is the property holder or the government’s liable?

 

[Speedo66]

I doubt the gov. will sign this, just more grandstanding.

No doubt the lobbyists are already working the politicians on behalf of big businesses with “no guns” signs.

 

[.455_Hunter]

My sympathies for "private property rights" are pretty limited when your "private property" is open to public access, like a store, mall, theater, performance venue, arena, etc. Personal residences and secure business are something else.

 

[MEHavey]

" I believe" a tort case could be made that if a proprietor prohibited an otherwise legal action,
-- and that prohibition could be shown to directly contribute and/or cause injury or death --
it could make for very interesting case law.

 

[Armybrat]

I'm not sure I like to be told what to do or allow on my own property.

I suppose it will be a cash cow for people that are locked up in GA or does the States exempt themselves. If thats the case, I like it even less...

The state won’t be telling them to do anything or what they can or cannot allow on their own property.
The state is telling them they can be liable for a lack of safety measures on their premises in case of injury, death, loss, etc. just. Like they are if someone slips on a wet floor and gets hurt.
Go ahead and prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying in their business, but be prepared to insure their safety.

 

[jmorris]

Go ahead and prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying in their business, but be prepared to insure their safety.

To my point though, is what about the State itself?

How about already occurred vs what if...

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/ma...-after-family-pleads-to-guards-for-protection

Oh, now that it's on them there is no way to ensure the safety of everyone but individual property owners with fewer resources, because we are not spending everyones money, are supposed to be held to a higher standard?

Not a chance. How about the State figure it out for themselves before they come telling others what to do?

 

[Armybrat]

The state governments will probably declare themselves “immune” to liability.
Here in Texas the state allows legal carry in most state facilities and forbids local governments to forbid it.

 

[bearcreek]

How about the State figure it out for themselves before they come telling others what to do?

FWIW, here are the places where a "lawful weapons carrier" cannot legally carry in Georgia. For @Armybrat's info, it's a fair bit shorter than the list of places in Texas.

-In a courthouse;
-In a jail or prison;
-In a place of worship, unless the governing body or authority of the place of worship permits the
carrying of weapons or long guns by persons who are lawful weapons carriers;
-In a state mental health facility as defined in Code Section 37-1-1 which admits individuals on an
involuntary basis for treatment of mental illness, developmental disability, or addictive disease;
provided, however, that carrying a weapon or long gun in such location in a manner in
compliance with paragraph (3) of subsection (d) of this Code section shall not constitute a
violation of this subsection;
-On the premises of a nuclear power facility, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.2, and
the punishment provisions of Code Section 16-11-127.2 shall supersede the punishment
provisions of this Code section; or
-Within 150 feet of any polling place when elections are being conducted and such polling place
is being used as a polling place as provided for in paragraph (27) of Code Section 21-2-2, except
as provided in subsection (i) of Code Section 21-2-413.

 

[Ks5shooter]

Interesting.....

 

[jmorris]

FWIW, here are the places where a "lawful weapons carrier" cannot legally carry in Georgia. For @Armybrat's info, it's a fair bit shorter than the list of places in Texas.

-In a courthouse;
-In a jail or prison;
-In a place of worship, unless the governing body or authority of the place of worship permits the
carrying of weapons or long guns by persons who are lawful weapons carriers;
-In a state mental health facility as defined in Code Section 37-1-1 which admits individuals on an
involuntary basis for treatment of mental illness, developmental disability, or addictive disease;
provided, however, that carrying a weapon or long gun in such location in a manner in
compliance with paragraph (3) of subsection (d) of this Code section shall not constitute a
violation of this subsection;
-On the premises of a nuclear power facility, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.2, and
the punishment provisions of Code Section 16-11-127.2 shall supersede the punishment
provisions of this Code section; or
-Within 150 feet of any polling place when elections are being conducted and such polling place
is being used as a polling place as provided for in paragraph (27) of Code Section 21-2-2, except
as provided in subsection (i) of Code Section 21-2-413.

Yes and how many of those hold the property owner liable for crimes committed against people there?

 

[Ethan Verity]

My sympathies for "private property rights" are pretty limited when your "private property" is open to public access, like a store, mall, theater, performance venue, arena, etc. Personal residences and secure business are something else.

My thoughts exactly!
Imagine how worthless your carry permit would be if every single "private" business that's open to the public was a "gun free" zone.

 

[Kleanbore]

Imagine how worthless your carry permit would be if every single "private" business that's open to the public was a "gun free" zone.

Like NYS?

Texas moved in that direction after open carry was passed.

 

[AlexanderA]

“Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, and who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, or incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct of another person occurring on property where the lawful possession of weapons is prohibited, shall have a cause of action against the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property and causes such prohibition to occur. In addition to damages, the lawful weapons carrier shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.”

This is very badly drafted. A key element is missing: that the inability to carry a weapon is a proximate cause of the injury. For example, if there was a car accident involving the prospective weapons carrier in the parking lot (not the fault of the prospective weapons carrier), then he would be able to collect additional damages from the premises owner, on the basis of a completely irrelevant fact . I don't think this is the intent of the proposed legislation.

 

[Kleanbore]

This is very badly drafted. A key element is missing: that the inability to carry a weapon is a proximate cause of the injury.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Nor only is it far too inclusive, it does not address whether a loss would reaonably be expected to have been prevented had the injured party been allowed to carry.

I don't think this is the intent of the proposed legislation.

Nor do I.

A very, very bad bill indeed.

 

[JTHunter]

Didn't Tennessee try something like this a few years ago? I don't remember if they got it passed.

 

[rust collector]

There is no shortage of ill-advised, poorly-drafted, headline-grabbing legislation circling the drain out there. Unless and until it becomes law, however, I don't believe it belongs in the legal section.