to prohibit people from defending themselves the YOU naturally bear responsibility if they are injured through your actions.
After all, it only makes sense, as it is the owners posting “No Guns” signs on their property that are leaving gun owners defenseless in areas where criminals have no qualms about having a gun.
… “All we want to make sure is, if you’re in the store or anywhere and it has a ‘no gun’ sign, then that store needs to understand they have absolute custodial care of that person,” Rep. Momtahan said of the measure.
Look, it’s only fair. If I a damaged by you policies, you may be legally liable for any damages that result in you action. Hey, I might feel scared and anxious even if no gang-bangers walk in with guns! You may be liable for that, too, Mr. property owner/leaseholder!
You wanna play the lawfare game? OK, but you won’t like it!
According to the text of the legislation, “Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, and who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, or incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct of another person occurring on property where the lawful possession of weapons is prohibited, shall have a cause of action against the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property and causes such prohibition to occur. In addition to damages, the lawful weapons carrier shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.”
But that could also render the owner if a citizen doesn’t even own a gun with them: “I would have bought and carried a gun but the sign said they weren’t allowed.”
And gee, what if a person suffered injury at another location because he or she didn’t have a gun with them solely because they thought they might drop by that store?