Lawmaker Proposes Creators Of 'Gun-Free Zones' Be Liable For Attacks In Zones

Michigan State Representative Gary Eisen introduced legislation to make creators of "gun-free zones" responsible.

Lansing, MI - A Michigan lawmaker says that “gun-free zones” are really “killing zones” and introduced legislation that would hold the owner of a “gun-free zone” legally liable if there is an attack on their premises.

Republican Michigan State Representative Gary Eisen introduced two bills in the state legislature in August that would hold government municipalities and private businesses legally liable for creating “gun-free zones,” according to Michigan Capitol Confidential.

House Bill 4975 would take away government immunity if someone were to be injured during an attack on government property where guns were banned.

House Bill 4976 would hold a government, business or individual which designated its property as a “gun-free zone” responsible for the safety of the people on that property, Michigan Capitol Confidential reported.

Eisen said fulfilling the requirements of HB 4976 might mean government entities or businesses need to hire additional security to protect citizens on their property.

“I have to presume that no one will have a gun inside and I will be safe,” the lawmaker 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.”

“If they don’t want to be liable, then don’t put the sign in the window,” Eisen added.

The GOP representative is a firearms instructor who teaches pistol handling and concealed-carry classes, Michigan Capitol Confidential reported.

Eisen explained that part of the motivation behind his proposed measured stemmed from a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center’s updated 2014 report that said 98 percent of mass public shootings happen in “gun-free zones.”

The Washington Post fact-checked that statistic after President Donald Trump referenced it during a May 4 speech he made to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and declared it accurate, depending on which definition of “mass shooting” is used.

Most number crunchers consider any crime scene where four or more people, not including the gunman, are killed a "mass shooting." But some entities strip out statistics related to gang violence.

The center’s report showed that 98.4 percent of mass shootings between 1950 and July 10, 2016 took place in so-called “gun-free zones,” The Washington Post reported.

“We call them ‘killing zones,’ not ‘gun-free zones,’” Eisen said.

Comments (19)
No. 1-10
flybynight
flybynight

👍👍👍👍👍

Excalibr4
Excalibr4

The tide is starting to turn!

JBo
JBo

Seems very reasonable to me.

Det_John_Kimble
Det_John_Kimble

I really like this! Hope this spreads across the nation.

Hi_estComnDenomn
Hi_estComnDenomn

so in the opposite logic, gun-carrying zones would be liable for any damage done during an attack, right?

LostAllSanity
LostAllSanity

I have been arguing this with my State Representative for two years. When a business denies me the right to have the means to protect myself and my family, then they have an obligation to provide a higher level of security. If they do not, they are liable. By example, if a business owner - or management - knows that an employee has demonstrated a violent temperament and the means to harm employees or customers and the business does not remove the violent employee, they are liable. If you there is a reasonable argument that the business owner puts people in an environment of increased probability of harm - they should be liable. That leads to another question. If I need to purchase in that store and feel compelled to return to my car and remove my firearm - and if, despite my best and reasonable efforts to secure the firearm, it is stolen from the car and used in a felony - is the store owner responsible? It would be an interesting argument before a higher court. Thank you and great job Rep Eisen.

cops-kid
cops-kid

I'd like to see him in higher office

MajScallywag
MajScallywag

Certainly makes sense to me!!

Sivaas_
Sivaas_

Yes!

Sarge McVey
Sarge McVey

I have a CCW, and I often have to "unfortunately" go into shopping centers here that have extremely small signs that say no weapons allowed. Guess what I ignore them, mainly because there is no armed security guards present, and knowing what I do about the training 99% of private security guards get on firearms I prefer keeping my firearm on me. I go to the range weekly and expend upwards 500 rounds keeping in practice, and the range I go to has a tactical live fire exercise also, and I use that one it is more realistic, and yes our local police and sheriffs department use it also. So for all of you liberals out there who think you are making America safe by creating Gun Free Zones, stfu.