GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-20-2013, 00:48   #1
spcwes
Senior Member
 
spcwes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,083
Gun Free Zones

So my next question is can we hold people liable in court for having areas of the United States maintain gun free zones. I am hearing of course that all these areas promote mass murder and have in the last 20 years caused several.

So now that we are revolting against the BS in Washington lets roll on these gun free zones as a direct attack on the 2nd by way of purposely disarming law abiding citizens making it impossible to defend themselves. Could we do this?
__________________
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American perception that each individual is accountable for his/her actions." -Ronald Reagan-
spcwes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 02:36   #2
GLJones
Senior Member
 
GLJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 528
Send a message via AIM to GLJones
I would suspect that government created zones, no, you can't sue them. Now, a private property situation, maybe. Say the mall has a no guns sign so you leave your gun in the car. A shooting happens and you or your family is injured or killed. If you can convince a jury that the mall is liable for your injuries because they took responsibility for your safety when they declared it a no gun zone, you might win.
As with anything in the legal system, it's a crap shoot.
__________________
Jerry
Niner #105
Big Dog #1004
Glock 26,30,36 and AR15
GLJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 08:22   #3
spcwes
Senior Member
 
spcwes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLJones View Post
I would suspect that government created zones, no, you can't sue them. Now, a private property situation, maybe. Say the mall has a no guns sign so you leave your gun in the car. A shooting happens and you or your family is injured or killed. If you can convince a jury that the mall is liable for your injuries because they took responsibility for your safety when they declared it a no gun zone, you might win.
As with anything in the legal system, it's a crap shoot.
Oh I am sure its a crap shoot but with the stuff happening at a state level and with what is going on in congress it could be viewed as a direct attack on the 2nd and if someone got hurt or killed could be a direct violation of law based on an unconstitutional zone.
__________________
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American perception that each individual is accountable for his/her actions." -Ronald Reagan-
spcwes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 23:34   #4
jwagess
Senior Member
 
jwagess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 397
In regards to gun-free zones United States vs Lopez.
Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992 he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges, into the school. The pistol was not loaded; Lopez claimed that he was to deliver the weapon to another person, a service for which he would receive $40.[1] He was confronted by school authorities — the school had received anonymous tips that Lopez was carrying the weapon — and admitted to having the weapon. The next day, he was charged with violation of the federal[2] Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C. 922(q)[3]

Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that 922(q) of the Act was "unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." The trial court denied the motion, ruling that 922(q) was "a constitutional exercise of Congress' well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools... affects interstate commerce."

Lopez was tried and convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that 922(q) exceeded Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction, holding that "section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." The Court of Appeals noted that the findings and evidence presented before Congress to justify the passage of the Act pursuant to the federal Commerce Clause power was simply insufficient to uphold the Act, in effect ruling that the Government had simply not made its case that the Act was justified as an exercise of the Commerce Clause power of Congress; this of course left the door open for a later Congress, with more complete evidence and justification, to enact a valid Act, based upon a more complete showing of evidence of interstate commerce being sufficiently "affected" to justify the exercise of the federal Commerce power.[4]

The United States government filed a petition for certiorari, whereby the Court has discretion to hear or to decline a particular case, for Supreme Court review and the Court accepted the case.

To sustain the Act, the Government was obligated[5] to show that 922(q) was a valid exercise of the Congressional Commerce Clause power, i.e. that the section regulated a matter which "affected" (or "substantially affected"[6]) interstate commerce.[7]

The Government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The Government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation's financial health.

The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person's economic productivity?[8]
__________________
You can never have too much ammunition.
jwagess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 11:33   #5
spcwes
Senior Member
 
spcwes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,083
Interesting. Seems to me some of our pro-firearm folks should attack the holy hell out of this and provide a way for all families that have been made defenseless in gun free zones and were then affected by violence as a result.

It appears that slippery slope has been met and then some being that I think all the recent mass shootings were in gun free zones.
__________________
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American perception that each individual is accountable for his/her actions." -Ronald Reagan-
spcwes is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:47.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 884
288 Members
596 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31