Gun Free Zones reform

[boogerhook]

In light of the increase of mass shootings in gun free zones over the last 20+ years, how about federal legislation that mandates "gun free zones" can only be established if they are enforced gun free zones, not target rich undefended zones? Enforced zones are those that have controlled access points with security personnel and metal detectors, e.g. a court house, air port, federal buildings, such as DHS etc.

Any takers?

Read More

 

[Stomper]

Naw, I prefer to "roll my own" when it comes to the responsibility for my personal safety.

 

[freestoneangler]

Going into "gun free zone" stores in Seattle while exercising my unalienable 2A rights... do you suppose the gal that looks like a walking fishing tackle shop has any idea?

 

[boogerhook]

Going into "gun free zone" stores in Seattle while exercising my unalienable 2A rights... do you suppose the gal that looks like a walking fishing tackle shop has any idea?

I am not concerned about shops. More about schools and universities.

 

[freestoneangler]

My school and university days are long gone... they can have them.

 

[boogerhook]

I have 2 kids in the system.

 

[blackadder]

In light of the increase of mass shootings in gun free zones over the last 20+ years, how about federal legislation that mandates "gun free zones" can only be established if they are enforced gun free zones, not target rich undefended zones? Enforced zones are those that have controlled access points with security personnel and metal detectors, e.g. a court house, air port, federal buildings, such as DHS etc.

Any takers?

Not that anyone would see the irony of armed guards enforcing "gun free" zones. If it came down to lots of people saying ya lets do it I would go along with it. That being said, I prefer to be responsible for my own security since I know I have more training than most armed rent-a-cops. Thats my two cents.

 

[Liberty97045]

In light of the increase of mass shootings in gun free zones over the last 20+ years, how about federal legislation that mandates "gun free zones" can only be established if they are enforced gun free zones, not target rich undefended zones? Enforced zones are those that have controlled access points with security personnel and metal detectors, e.g. a court house, air port, federal buildings, such as DHS etc.

Any takers?

In theory I agree but the problem is "federal"

The states MUST retain the right to pass their own laws as long as said laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

 

[blackadder]

Not that anyone would see the irony of armed guards enforcing "gun free" zones. If it came down to lots of people saying ya lets do it I would go along with it. That being said, I prefer to be responsible for my own security since I know I have more training than most armed rent-a-cops. Thats my two cents.

I would also like to qualify my statement. I would not be ok with the "gun free" zones because everyone is doing it. I see why courthouses etc are "gun free", so having enforced zones at schools (k-12 only) would be acceptable.

 

[boogerhook]

In theory I agree but the problem is "federal"

The states MUST retain the right to pass their own laws as long as said laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Just as federal as the GFZSA ;-)

 

[blackadder]

Just got this in an email from USCCA.
Arizona Lawmakers Seek to Level the Playing Field
BY TIM SCHMIDT - USCCA FOUNDER You and I both know there are few things in this world as ineffectual at stopping bad guys as gun-free zones. The bottom line is that criminals simply don't follow the rules—and no sign or warning (or law!) is going to keep out or deter individuals who are intent on doing harm.

People like us understand that gun-free zones serve only to disarm the law-abiding—to create a group of citizens who, despite being willing and able and legally licensed to carry concealed weapons, become targets of the individuals intent on doing harm.

Gun-free zones strip responsibly armed Americans of their rights—and their safety.

But now, a new bill in Arizona could redefine the rules in favor of the good guys.

HB2320, introduced by Rep. Brenda Barton, seeks to amend section 13-3102 of the Arizona Revised Statutes as relating to firearms.

According to the Arizona Citizens Defense League, who is monitoring its progress, the bill "would exempt CCW permit holders from being disarmed in 'public' (state and local government) establishments unless security measures (metal detectors, etc.) are in place to screen every person entering for weapons."

In other words, if an establishment cannot guarantee that every individual entering said establishment is not in possession of a weapon, legal concealed carry permit holders are under no obligation to disarm before entering that same property.

Kansas passed a similar bill in 2013, and—according to Concealed Nation, saw "no effects, other than removing an infringement on the right to bear arms."

Now, I need to make something clear. Despite this proposed legislation, I believe that gun-free zones are—and will continue to be—both ineffective and dangerous.

But because many of the places included in this legislation will likely be hesitant to spend the time and money on implementing a system that ensures compliance, it looks like law-abiding permit holders may be able to confidently carry in places that have otherwise been "off-limits." And that means law-abiding permit holders will be able to defend themselves and others against the bad guys who, as I said earlier, simply don't follow the rules—no matter what a sign says.

 

[boogerhook]

Just got this in an email from USCCA.
Arizona Lawmakers Seek to Level the Playing Field
BY TIM SCHMIDT - USCCA FOUNDER You and I both know there are few things in this world as ineffectual at stopping bad guys as gun-free zones. The bottom line is that criminals simply don't follow the rules—and no sign or warning (or law!) is going to keep out or deter individuals who are intent on doing harm.

People like us understand that gun-free zones serve only to disarm the law-abiding—to create a group of citizens who, despite being willing and able and legally licensed to carry concealed weapons, become targets of the individuals intent on doing harm.

Gun-free zones strip responsibly armed Americans of their rights—and their safety.

But now, a new bill in Arizona could redefine the rules in favor of the good guys.

HB2320, introduced by Rep. Brenda Barton, seeks to amend section 13-3102 of the Arizona Revised Statutes as relating to firearms.

According to the Arizona Citizens Defense League, who is monitoring its progress, the bill "would exempt CCW permit holders from being disarmed in 'public' (state and local government) establishments unless security measures (metal detectors, etc.) are in place to screen every person entering for weapons."

In other words, if an establishment cannot guarantee that every individual entering said establishment is not in possession of a weapon, legal concealed carry permit holders are under no obligation to disarm before entering that same property.

Kansas passed a similar bill in 2013, and—according to Concealed Nation, saw "no effects, other than removing an infringement on the right to bear arms."

Now, I need to make something clear. Despite this proposed legislation, I believe that gun-free zones are—and will continue to be—both ineffective and dangerous.

But because many of the places included in this legislation will likely be hesitant to spend the time and money on implementing a system that ensures compliance, it looks like law-abiding permit holders may be able to confidently carry in places that have otherwise been "off-limits." And that means law-abiding permit holders will be able to defend themselves and others against the bad guys who, as I said earlier, simply don't follow the rules—no matter what a sign says.

Exactly my point. Hope it makes it.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Gun free zones should be legally liable for ones safety throughout and near the entire property.

This means adequate and ample lighting cameras and security both inside and outside of the property.

Itd be fun to take those MF'ers to court if I had the funds should I be robbed or harmed in any way.

In this crazy day and age where someone can sue because they didnt specify that their coffee being sold is "hot" or where a woman can sue herself.. Why cant this be a the case as well?