That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.In 2005, nearly a decade before Illinois was dragged kicking and screaming into the reality of acknowledging that we the people are endowed with a right to not only keep, but to bear arms, such legislation would have been merely symbolic, even had it passed.
That is no longer the case. and it is past time for the state to recognize that those who use their power, whether as government officials or as property owners, to mandate that the people under their power be defenseless, are accessories to their murder, should predatory scum take advantage of their forced disarmament. [More]
Stumble it!
1 comments:
Obviously, "gun-free zone" signs are at best useless, and at worst, they are basically an invitation to commit violent crimes without opposition. The sign might as well say "Hunting Preserve for Homicidal Maniacs." Naturally, criminals don't obey the rules, and the people who do are honest, peaceable citizens who would not commit crimes anyway. In fact, almost every shooting spree in the past fifty years took place in a so-called "gun-free zone."
Re: liability, owners of "public accommodation" property (e.g., stores, restaurants) could be between a rock and a hard place. If they ban guns and an unarmed customer gets hurt by a mugger, the property owner could get sued. But if they allow guns, they could be blamed for an accidental or unjustified shooting on the premises (for example, if a customer shot a harmless panhandler whom he mistook for a mugger).
Unfortunately, with all of the ambulance chasing going on these days, it might be safer for them to post the "gun-free zone" signs. If you get hurt by a mugger or carjacker, it would be hard for you to prove that you could have defended yourself if you had been armed. They could claim that the attacker jumped you from behind and that you did not have a chance to draw your weapon anyway. They could also claim that, even if you had time to draw and fire, you might have missed the mugger and hit an innocent bystander.
If an unarmed customer is killed or injured by a criminal, the property owner could deny responsibility, saying that the assailant was violating the "gun-free" policy. Of course, most muggers and carjackers are repeat offenders with long records, so the property owner could point out that it was illegal for the criminal to have a weapon in his possession in the first place.
Post a Comment