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.

Trending: Secret Service Responds to VILE Celebrity Threat Against Barron Trump!

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

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.