New York’s proposed gun free zones

Many in NY City use public transportation, so can't leave their guns locked in their vehicle, like I can. So, it only takes one "gun free zone" to eliminate the possibility of carrying on a shopping trip. Are you just supposed to leave your gun laying on the sidewalk while in a gun free zone. These are the same people who are always clamoring about getting guns "off the street"!

73,
Rick
 
Smoke, the property owner can always decide. It can simply hang a sign at entrance that says no firearms. Just as they post signs that say no smoking, no vaping, no loitering etc……. There should never be a presumption of restriction.

And yes , I'm on the Thomas Train for this one. I've been a supporter of him since they put him through the wringer way back when.
 
Smoke, the property owner can always decide. It can simply hang a sign at entrance that says no firearms. Just as they post signs that say no smoking, no vaping, no loitering etc……. There should never be a presumption of restriction.

And yes , I'm on the Thomas Train for this one. I've been a supporter of him since they put him through the wringer way back when.


Go back and read the post I was responding to.
 
I re-read it and still think if I can legally do something (anything) then a property owner should have to tell me that action is not welcome on his property. I don't disagree he has that right.
 
Really, y'all had to figure the folks 'in charge' in NY would not take the SC ruling laying down, knew for sure they were gonna figure out a way around it to make life for the law-abiding carriers even harder.
 
Gun free zone is only safer than a non gun free zone if you are going to search or use a metal detector to ensure it is in fact a gun free zone. Think about a political rally, they are gun free and typically have metal detectors to check folks as they come in. If a free for all, more guns is safer, was truly the best tactic, these events wouldn't check people right?
 
I re-read it and still think if I can legally do something (anything) then a property owner should have to tell me that action is not welcome on his property. I don't disagree he has that right.

My issue is with the poster saying if a property owner chooses to exercise that right then they should be held accountable their customer's safety
 
When the property owner is the state it should be liable for my protection when it deprives me of my ability to defend myself in order to use facilities set up for my use. Especially if that government body is the one that makes it necessary for me to fund that facility and that facility has proven to be dangerous and that they do not have the ability to protect me.

Take the NYC subway system. If is is subsidizes by tax dollars and has a record of high criminal activity, the city is negligent in regards to my welfare when they prohibit me from the ability to defend myself to use something I am forced to fund. Just having transit police is not enough if records show they have failed to secure the area against crimes against persons.
 
Last edited:
These people posting gun free zones should then be held liable for anyone shot within. The citizen is not going to shoot anyone anywhere except as self defense. The Gun Free Zone should be renamed Free Fire Zone.
The citizen is not going to shoot people with his CCW. He won't shoot people with his AR either. In fact the citizen won't shot people regardless of what kind of gun he has.
Just another reminder that all this anti gun poo has nothing to do with the safety of the public.
 
Last edited:
How long will it be before a businesses with such a sign will be informed that they will be liable if a shooting occurs in their store?

I'm not certain if you are referring to criminal liability or civil liability in this case. I can't see criminal liability if the store owner/management didn't break any laws by not allowing concealed firearms on its premises, but I'm also not clear if they could be held civilly liable if they were following the law in the same manner as well. After all, the majority of stores, etc. currently don't provide ANY security whatsoever other than perhaps a CCTV camera or two now, yet that doesn't automatically make them liable in either direction if a crime does occur on their premises right now.

Although we do know anybody can sue for anything these days...:rolleyes:
 
Many times it seems to me the anti gun fanatics are more interested in seeing the gun rights taken from their fellow citizens than protecting the public from criminals with guns. There are some people that actually believe that if guns are illegal that will solve the problem. They are dreaming in a fantasy world.
They learn from nothing. The Do Gooders got Alcohol outlawed and it opened up illegal operations big time. Smugglers and bootleggers grew overnight. Narcotics are illegal, does this stop criminals from selling dope?
If guns are made illegal there will be a vast flood of illegal weapons the next day. The same people who bring you dope will be sidelining guns. Since guns will be illegal there will be no difference between having a rifle or a machine gun. There are truckloads of automatic weapons for sale in Sub Saharan Africa. $12 American for a AK on the street. Very large profit margin to be had.
There will be no background checks, only criminals will have guns. This will result in gangs going into new types of criminal activities. It will be worse than Wild West. A gang of guys with full autos. What is going to stop them?
They have already shown they have no regard for human life. They don't care who they kill. Some kill just for some kind of spite.
 
NY'ers could put a stop to this nonsense pretty quickly - set the lawyers loose on them. Anyone gets injured, robbed, ect in a 'gun-free zone' can sue the property owners, the proprietor or business operator, and ANY government org including elected officials (individual personal liability) and I would bet a lot of this nonsense would stop.

There are some EU countries that REQUIRE their elected officials to utilize PUBLIC transit and they have no private security on the public dime. Let's start by taking THEIR PRIVATE police force funded by OUR TAX dollars....I bet their sing a new tune :)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top