Russell wrote:LCplMustafa wrote:
As for the employer issue... man, that's rough.
Hence why we are starting to forbid an employer from doing that, IE, the parking lot bill that just passed.
That bill passed in TX? Link please!
I've expressed my views on this matter on other forums when it came up in Colorado. I think spelling out liability explicitly is a good idea, but legislation like this is not a good idea, because the law is too general and thus goes too far. The text of the proposed change to the AZ Code:
13-3114. Gun-free zones; liability; definitions
A. This state or any agency or political subdivision of this state or any person, organization or entity that establishes a gun-free zone is liable for damages that result from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in the gun-free zone if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against the criminal conduct. If the criminal conduct was the result of terrorism or adversely affected a child under sixteen years of age or a person seventy years of age or older, this state or any agency or political subdivision of this state or any person, organization or entity that established the gun‑free zone is liable for treble damages.
B. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Criminal conduct" includes offenses listed in chapters 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 25 and 29 of this title.
2. "Gun-free zone" means any building, place, area or curtilage or in or on any conveyance in which a person's right or ability to possess a firearm is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted sign.
I would change Section A to read as follows:
A. This state, any agency or political subdivision of this state, or any person, organization or entity that is responsible for establishing a gun-free zone is liable for damages that result from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in the gun-free zone, if and only if both of the following conditions are met:
i: The individual owned a firearm that could otherwise have been carried legally by the individual in absence of the gun-free zone, and
ii: a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against the criminal conduct.
If the criminal conduct was the result of terrorism or adversely affected a child under sixteen years of age or a person seventy years of age or older, this state or any agency or political subdivision of this state or any person, organization or entity that established the gun‑free zone is liable for treble damages.
What this does is allow the business to say that it is not liable
under this law if the individual couldn't have carried anyway. If the individual doesn't own a carryable firearm (or any gun), then whether a gun would have helped or not is immaterial. Otherwise, the Brady Bunch could sue for damages under this law and win. That's not to say the mall can't still be found liable in the case of a non-gun owner's injury or death; the mall just cannot be forced to assume liability under this law if the person didn't have a firearm to carry.
It also more clearly spells out that the entity responsible for establishing the zone is the one liable for damages. Places where carry is prohibited by State law (alcohol sellers, private schools, entertainment venues like stadiums, etc), sign or no sign, are the State's responsibility; the business is only responsible if they post signage or tell someone carrying to leave it outside.
However, there are still issues. If I own a handgun, there's always the question of whether I would have left it home anyway even if I could have carried it. The current wording ignores this question and assumes that anyone who could have carried would have done so. On the one hand this has the potential for abuse; if I would have left my gun in the car, sign or no sign, I could still claim damages because the question of whether I would have carried is immaterial. On the other, requiring that the individual prove that they would have carried in absence of the gun-free zone is a "get out of jail free card" for the business; you cannot prove conclusively that you would have done anything other than what you actually did, and a smart defense lawyer can have your carry habits in non-posted places thrown out in a heartbeat.
There are other issues with this law which relate to the State's assuming liability coupled with other State laws restricting carry. If the firearm I own is a long gun, am I allowed to claim damages against the City or State if I'm shot on the street because State law or a city ordinance makes OC of a rifle or shotgun illegal? That would turn the State of Arizona into one big "rifle-free zone" with liability attached. Such a case is more likely to send this law back to the drawing board than to result in the repeal of existing GC legislation, and it might not re-emerge.
I don't know how I would resolve intangible damages such as mental distress. Currently the law would allow someone who was not physically harmed by the gunman to claim mental distress; the person would simply say they could have stopped the criminal without the gun, and were mentally tortured by watching helplessly because of the gun-free zone. Again, there is the potential for abuse by people just looking to make a quick buck, but there is real mental pain and suffering involved in a shooting so you can't limit liability to physical injury/damage. That would probably require an AG opinion and some judicial intelligence (contradiction in terms, I know).
Anyway, fuel for the discussion.
