I like his thinking

[thorborg]

Some guts to fight back. Stop the defensive. A constant offensive program is the only way forward.
Game, Sports, War, Constitution under attack, A good job, none of it will be "Won' through defensive actions.
Making this and more like it, a good move!


Legislator seeks triple damages for businesses that ban guns (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-legislator-seeks-triple-damages-at-businesses-that-ban-guns-b99749367z1-384034431.html)

Read More

 

[The Resister]

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.)

 

[NWGlockgal]

A state lawmaker wants businesses that ban guns to be held strictly liable for any gun-related injury that might occur in their premises — and to pay triple damages.

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.

 

[PaulB47]

I don't know... any strategy that requires government is not very appealing to me. Sorry for my lack of enthusiasm...

 

[PiratePast40]

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.

 

[The Resister]

I don't know... any strategy that requires government is not very appealing to me. Sorry for my lack of enthusiasm...

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.

 

[nammac]

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

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

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 wanting being done...

the only place i dont carry is the post office, courthouse, or any other building with federal employees

 

[Slobray]

Under Gannon's bill the liability would attach automatically. In other words, if someone with a gun — a concealed carry permit holder or otherwise — injured or killed someone inside a store that had a sign prohibiting weapons, the business would be on the hook for triple the damages to any victims.

Legislator seeks triple damages for businesses that ban guns (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-legislator-seeks-triple-damages-at-businesses-that-ban-guns-b99749367z1-384034431.html)

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.


Ray