If an entity declares itself a gun free zone are they liable for damages if they don't enforce it?

[Wcross]

What are your thoughts? If a business or government entity such as a mall or school posts signs saying guns are prohibited does the public have the reasonable expectation that they will not fall victim to a gunman? Is the entity legally obligated to do more than just post a sign? Do they have an obligation to protect their patrons from gun violence on the property if they have required them to forfeit their own defense?
If you have declared your property a gun free zone you should have to enforce it with metal detectors & a security force to protect your patrons.

[wtmusic]

1. It is a pretty empty pronouncement

unless you're going to erect metal detectors and are prepared to search people.

[lazer47]

2. And in the case of searching someone or holding someone

you might consider having a GUN to protect yourself

[wtmusic]

3. Good idea

and the searcher should have a gun to protect herself too. And in a school all the kids should have guns to protect themselves too.

Or better: everyone should stay at home behind locked doors cowering in fear.

[Wcross]

5. Don't be ridiculous, nobody is advocating arming children.

If the school proclaims itself to be gun free should they be required to take steps to enforce that rule? Shouldn't they have metal detectors & armed security?

[wtmusic]

8. Yes, they should.

Although IMO better to not proclaim in the first place. False assurances are worse than none.

[Wcross]

4. Armed security guards would be required. n/t

[lazer47]

6. Sort of defeats the purpose of a gun free zone, don't it

[slackmaster]

7. Not at all

The gun-free areas of courthouses and airports are secured by armed guards.

[lazer47]

9. Yeah,, I would feel much safer with BLACKWATER protecting and

serving the general unarmed public.:sarcasm:

[slackmaster]

12. I have no idea where that came from

But it certainly doesn't pertain to the topic of this thread.

:crazy:

[LostinVA]

10. You're back!

:hug:

[lazer47]

11. Sorry,, I just cannot keep my mouth shut,,,

[zanne]

13. Well, the areas around schools are drug-free zones.

I won't say it always works, but when perpetrators are apprehended, the penalty is a doozy. I think it's ironic that school areas are not gun-free zones, however.

[beevul]

14. Since when are most schools NOT "gun free zones" under federal law? N/T

[dysfunctional press]

15. no. what is it with the american propensity to whip out litigation whenever possible...?

i just don't get it. :shrug:

[krispos42]

16. I personally think it's for legal protection for the business.

Scenario: Whacko loads up, walks into mall/school/store with "Gun-Free Zone" sign, whips out guns, starts shooting.

Ending A: Everybody screams and runs. Whacko kills several, police show up as soon as possible. At some point, whacko offs himself or is killed or captured by the police.

Ending B: Almost everybody screams and panics. Armed citizen pulls out pistol, engages whacko, aborting his shooting rampage. Whacko and an innocent, screaming, running bystander get hit by armed citizen's bullets.

In Ending A, the school or business is legally protected from lawsuits because, after all, they had a sign up.

In Ending B, the school or business (and the armed citizen) get sued, the former for allowing the armed citizen to carry in the building, and the latter for hitting an innocent bystander.



So, even though more people are likely to die under Ending A, it is better, legally, for the school or business in the aftermath.



At least, that's how it looks to me. Flame away.