Missouri to Allow Citizens to Sue Businesses for “Gun-Free” Zones?

Missouri representative-elect Nick Shroer is introducing a bill that would allow gun carriers to file suit against businesses that enforce gun-free zones on their property. In incidents taking place in gun-free zones – where, say, a gun owner was injured by another person or animal, and which incident could have been prevented had the gun owner been allowed to carry – the responsibility for the injury could fall on the business owner for enforcing a gun-free zone. According to the Springfield News-Leader:

The proposal, known as House Bill 96, which would apply when a person who is authorized to carry a firearm, is prohibited from doing so by a business and is then injured by another person or an animal.

If the injured person could otherwise have used a gun for self-defense, they could sue the business, which “assume(s) custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person” on their property who could carry.

[…]

There are a few hoops potential plaintiffs would have to hop through, Schroer said. For instance, felons who wouldn’t be allowed to carry a firearm anyway wouldn’t be allowed to sue, and the bill includes a two-year statute of limitations.

Schroer wasn’t aware of any cases in Missouri that his bill would have affected, pointing instead to attacks including James Holmes’ rampage at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado that left 12 dead and dozens more wounded.

Missouri representative-elect Nick Shroer is introducing a bill that would allow gun carriers to file suit against businesses that enforce gun-free zones on their property. In incidents taking place in gun-free zones – where, say, a gun owner was injured by another person or animal, and which incident could have been prevented had the gun owner been allowed to carry – the responsibility for the injury could fall on the business owner for enforcing a gun-free zone. According to the Springfield News-Leader:

The proposal, known as House Bill 96, which would apply when a person who is authorized to carry a firearm, is prohibited from doing so by a business and is then injured by another person or an animal.

If the injured person could otherwise have used a gun for self-defense, they could sue the business, which “assume(s) custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person” on their property who could carry.

[…]

There are a few hoops potential plaintiffs would have to hop through, Schroer said. For instance, felons who wouldn’t be allowed to carry a firearm anyway wouldn’t be allowed to sue, and the bill includes a two-year statute of limitations.

Schroer wasn’t aware of any cases in Missouri that his bill would have affected, pointing instead to attacks including James Holmes’ rampage at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado that left 12 dead and dozens more wounded.

 

Reposted with Permission from Eagle Rising.

Please leave your comments below