Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michigan Bill Would Put Gun-Free Zone On The Hook For Injuries

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michigan Bill Would Put Gun-Free Zone On The Hook For Injuries

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the authorities have no duty to protect you as an individual. The police’s job is to protect society as a whole, not you as a person. Honestly, that’s fine with me. While I respect police officers, by and large, I also recognize that the only way they could protect me as a person is to walk side-by-side with me all the time and I’m someone who likes my privacy.

    Where this becomes a problem, though, is in gun-free zones.

    In these places, which the law prohibits people from carrying firearms for their own protection, people are still responsible for their own safety despite the government neutering their ability to do so. The best example was Parkland where police failed to act yet no one inside was legally allowed to possess the means to fight back.

    Now, a Michigan bill seeks to fix this issue.

    Full article here:
    https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/1...Jxe3MxcV6pXjlc
    Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10

  • #2
    When is the BFA going to push a law maker buddies in taking this up in Ohio? This also should include private entities and politicians that keep passing these unconstitutional restrictions. . If you are gonna FORCE people to be defenseless then you should provide my personal security. If not, then you should be sued if harm comes to those people in your killer play grounds that you created.
    I carry a firearm because a cop is too heavy and takes too many breaks.

    Montani Semper Liberi - (Mountaineers Are Always Free)

    Comment


    • #3
      I could not support this type of legislation if it includes private entities. I abhor the way private property rights are constantly being chipped away - and I am saddened by the gun rights supporters that are OK with this type of legislation. I suspect it is a matter of not being able to see the forest for the trees: since it benefits them they are OK with it.
      Christian, Husband, Father
      NRA Life Member
      NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
      NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by justashooter View Post
        I could not support this type of legislation if it includes private entities. I abhor the way private property rights are constantly being chipped away - and I am saddened by the gun rights supporters that are OK with this type of legislation. I suspect it is a matter of not being able to see the forest for the trees: since it benefits them they are OK with it.
        I agree... In most cases you are not forced into a gun free zone, in the case of retailers you can chose to shop elsewhere..and i often do. Same with restaurants. Do we agree with bakeries being forced to bake gay wedding cakes..? Private property/business owners should be able to decide...Let the free market sort it out, maybe the libtard anti 2A folks will be more inclined to shop/eat there.. Like with Dicks sporting goods...Im sure it was a marketing decision to crap on Sportsmen, hunters, fishermen.. but their market research tells them pandering to the gun grabbers will help sell more tube socks and soccer balls to the bedwetters....Will see how that works out for them..follow the money... (Dicks owns Field and Stream by the way...so i dont shop there either)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by justashooter View Post
          I could not support this type of legislation if it includes private entities. I abhor the way private property rights are constantly being chipped away - and I am saddened by the gun rights supporters that are OK with this type of legislation. I suspect it is a matter of not being able to see the forest for the trees: since it benefits them they are OK with it.
          I would usually agree om private property rights, but we are talking about personal protection with your own safety device with a firearm that another person in a PUBLIC BUSINESS is saying you have no right to protect yourself. You are asking NOT ANYONE ELSE to do anything in the public private entity other than defending your own life. if they do not allow that, then they are responsible for your safety in their public private entity.

          The cake baker is apples and oranges.
          I carry a firearm because a cop is too heavy and takes too many breaks.

          Montani Semper Liberi - (Mountaineers Are Always Free)

          Comment


          • #6
            Not this again. This is why I stopped reading and posting over at OFCC. These private property owner zealots think their right to own private property gives them the right to deprive others of the right to life. Even if most people would agree with them, there is no support in the constitution for their position. The 2nd Amendment clearly states the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say that the "Congress shall make no law..." like is does when it is clearly meant to only restrict the government. "Shall not be infringed" applies to everyone; yes even the owners of private gun ranges. Furthermore, the Constitution very clearly delegates authority to the congress to regulate commerce (i.e., private businesses that are open to the public like private gun ranges), and state constitutions all have similar provisions.

            We will never get our rights back as long as there are those among us who want to keep for themselves the power to deprive others of their rights.
            "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

            Comment


            • #7
              Agree Liberty. But what do you mean “like gun ranges”? You lost me on that reference?

              This is what I was meaning if the property owner is not going to provide me a body guard, what right do that have denying me a natural right to life and, why they can’t be held accountable if something should happen to threaten my family or my Life? This is why Gun Free Zones are Unconstitutional to begin with.
              I carry a firearm because a cop is too heavy and takes too many breaks.

              Montani Semper Liberi - (Mountaineers Are Always Free)

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes. That is what I meant; privately owned gun range that is open to the public. I think Ohio still has a lot of cpz's because there are many people in the gun rights lobby that want the power for themselves to disarm others.
                "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well MY range is not a CPZ... just keep your CCW firearm holstered unless you are deploying it on the firing line!
                  Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X