JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Sorry to piss on the parade but, this is a house proposal by a guy representing a city of 5k people...it'll likely die without vote.

I do wish this idea, at a philosophical level, would make it's way to the national debate stage though...
 
Good now make it at the national level and watch all the gun free zones scramble to avoid facing a lawsuit!

This makes my iron become the big iron

From article:
A Republican state representative has introduced legislation that would hold government offices and private businesses liable if anyone is injured during a shooting in a gun-free zone on their premises.
State Rep. Gary Eisen, R-St. Clair Township, introduced House Bill 4975, which would revoke governmental immunity from lawsuits arising from injuries sustained on government property where guns are banned. Eisen is also the sponsor of House Bill 4976, which would make a government, business or individual that designates a property a gun-free zone responsible for the safety of individuals who enter it.
Eisen said the intention was to require a business or government that enforces a gun-free policy to take responsibility through measures like hiring security guards.
"I have to presume that no one will have a gun inside and I will be safe," Eisen said. "They are telling me, 'Don't worry, Mr. Eisen, this is a gun-free zone. You'll be perfectly safe in here.' We know that is not the case."
Eisen said by not allowing him to carry a gun, government and companies that declare their property a gun-free zone could be held liable under his bills.
 
Last Edited:
Id also like to add that simply adding security shouldnt be sufficient, security is a weird area that isnt always security. People think having security is enough or an insurance policy. While being the first line contact the most average security can do is ask for ID and verify to an approved list. Little more can be done especially if unarmed.

The company policy can say that you can use reasonable force to remove someone but the security agency that supplies (mine in particular) says you have no duty to act in a hostile environment and should only assist if asked by law but to mainly observe and report in compliance with your client site. Theres very little protection in place for the guards themselves beyond company policy and even then civil court can ruin you. Add in a protective clause for the guards and to seek making them more than a concierge level customer service rep who walks your property. Allow the guards to have an armed visible presence, non menacing of course.

Ive told mine if i get test popped while at work because some disgruntled person wants to not care about laws or life i am going to persue very strict legal action. Especially when company policy specifically states that it has a 0 tolerance violence policy and no weapons allowed - the policy specifically cites this due to the rise of active shooters.

Seems counter intuitive to cripple your "security" to me.
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top