1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!
  2. We're giving away over $1,000 in prizes this month in the Northwest Firearms Winter Giveaway!
    Dismiss Notice

I like his thinking

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by thorborg, Jun 24, 2016.

  1. thorborg

    thorborg portland oregon Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    eldbillbo and Slobray like this.
  2. The Resister

    The Resister Georgia Member

    Likes Received:
    I like the guy's thinking and one of the many things activists can do is to come up with similar proposed legislation and present it to their local elected leaders (especially state legislators.)
  3. NWGlockgal

    NWGlockgal Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    It would make sense that if some lawmakers want gun manufacturers to be help liable for any misuse of their product that a business should be help liable for any issues arising from the ban of the same product.
    Slobray likes this.
  4. PaulB47

    PaulB47 Hillsboro Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    I don't know... any strategy that requires government is not very appealing to me. Sorry for my lack of enthusiasm...
    v0lcom13sn0w likes this.
  5. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    The Wisconsin law is rather perverted. At the hotels I've stayed at, the desk clerks just roll their eyes and say that it's a corporate lawyers decision. They would be stupid to tell hunters to keep their expensive guns in their trucks overnight.

    My understanding is that the purpose is to stop avoid liability during gang turf disputes.
  6. The Resister

    The Resister Georgia Member

    Likes Received:
    Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. If a government strategy is the only one you're pursuing, you're pretty much screwed.

    At the same time, you cannot leave the government / legislative avenue unmanned lest the liberals get their agenda passed without resistance. If / when pro gun bills are in the mix and the legislators may have to vote for your bill in order to get left wing measures passed, they might be dissuaded from pushing too hard on gun control... I mean, presuming it ends up costing them something.
  7. nammac

    nammac I-5 Corridor - West of Portland Silver Supporter Silver Supporter

    Likes Received:
    The best defense is a great offense...

    We need to turn the tide, this is a great way to start...

    All GFZ's should be ignored, lest there is a metal detector or wanding being done...

    Edited to correct unpredictable predictive text
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2016
  8. v0lcom13sn0w

    v0lcom13sn0w Keizer, or Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    the only place i dont carry is the post office, courthouse, or any other building with federal employees
    nammac likes this.
  9. Slobray

    Slobray Yelm, WA Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:

    Really, why would this bill only cover being "injured or killed with a gun"?

    Why would this bill not cover other weapons/acts of violence?

    Since those CCW holders who carry in an anti-gun business can fined $1,000, would that mean if a CCW holder stopped a knife wielding maniac in an anti-gun business, would the business have to pay said maniac "triple damages"?

    Honestly, instead of writing some symbolic law that he knows will not be passed, he should write a real bill holding those anti self-defense businesses liable for all attacks against the patrons that they've disarmed. Something like that might actually have a chance to pass and would make more sense that what he has already written.

    The Resister likes this.