Let’s open another front

In the last twenty years most of the progress we have made in the gun rights movement has been in the domain of self-defense. This is our strongest point. We now have concealed carry in nearly all states and even in Washington D.C. with Constitutional Carry (called “Vermont Carry” when I first got involved in the movement) making good progress.

Alan Korwin explains there is another front we can open on the war with the anti-gun forces using our strongest weapon:

The Gun-Free Zone Liability Act of 2018

  • Improving American Safety and Security
  • Eliminating Bias and Prejudice
  • Restoring Constitutional Values
  • Dropping the Pretense: “We don’t want your kind eating here.”

Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual’s right or ability to self defense.

We are far better off making the anti-gun people defend their weakest positions rather than let them attack with their strongest weapons. Both sides have limited resources. Make them expend their resources on defense rather than on offense.

8 thoughts on “Let’s open another front

  1. Yes, offense works even better than defense because there is at worse no change to the status quo even if your efforts fail.

    Lawsuits against a few of the large select municipalities that have may-issue concealed handgun permits, to make them shall issue.

    Every state that limits where self defense can take place should be sued or have bills introduced to make those places more narrow, or non-existent.

  2. How much of a legislative impact would ensue from multiple successful lawsuits against businesses which have restricted CWP in shall-issue states? These suits would require, unfortunately, a valid CWP holder (and, preferably, one with demonstrated self defense acumen through training or experience) to suffer injury, death or loss as a result of liability incurred through denial of self defense ability by said business.

    I’d think that a few to several would set the stage for federal civil rights lawsuits against local and state governments to overturn such denials as are based in law. Undoubtedly, such would wind up at SCOTUS, which may be hazardous depending on SCOTUS’ makeup at the time, but enough “positive mass” gained through successful state court actions against businesses under local and state liability law might render that action moot.

    The Left has successfully used Lawfare to advance its agenda, I see no reason why we shouldn’t also; it’s been repeated often enough that the originator is lost to history, but “the best defense is an offense” is a truism applicable to more than war and sports.

  3. “Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual’s right or ability to self defense.”

    That’s exactly what 18 USC 241 does, and also 18 USC 242, or would do, but in fact they do nothing because they’re not enforced. Just like immigration law, If these existing laws are not being enforced, then under what new paradigm will we expect an identical new law to be enforced?

    Further, the constitution, established as “The Supreme Law of The Land” is said to “protect” these rights already, and is not being enforced, so of course 241 and 242 aren’t being enforced either, so how will any other similar “protection”?

    As it is we have layer upon layer of “protection”, each layer needing to be reinforced, we believe, with yet another layer? “Passing a law”, we tell the leftists, “is not the same thing as doing something.”

    I am reminded of Arthur C Clarke’s 2001, a Space Oddity (yes I know) in which Homo Sapiens is created, essentially, but not by God. Rather, by The First Born, an ancient, technologically advanced alien species, billions of years old, which serves as a God-substitute. We may even worship those aliens, I suppose, and see visions of them in our dreams and receive prophesies from them. Well that works nicely, doesn’t it? We can have it both ways. But so, how did THEY (the omnipotent aliens, which we in our clever deviousness may overcome, and take their place as masters of the galaxy) originate?

    We prepose to kick the can down the street, tacitly admitting that the constitution, having no power (because we won’t back it up), is dead, and that furthermore the laws we put in place to reinforce the dying constitution are also dead (because we won’t back them up either)? So we need new ones? OK, I’m in, but don’t complain when the shiny new law, redundant to all the ones before it including the Supreme one to which all public servants must swear an Oath, gets in turn ignored.

    Shall we include language in this new law, stating that all public servants must swear an oath to uphold, protect, sanctify and enforce this new law, under pain of death? Surely THAT will make it work whereas all the others have failed?

    I know; I don’t know how it works, and so the clever people must do my thinking for me. Stupid motherfuckers. That’s how it works; I know.

    • This is a state law being proposed in pro-gun states, to be enforced by those states. This is the path used by gay marriage advocates and, long before them, anti slavery advocates.

      It further demarcates the difference between free states and non-free. It is a stepping stone to getting the feds to enforce their law.

  4. I would like to see this but it is a heavy lift. As an alternative, consider a law that makes posting a “Concealed Weapons Permitted” sign a defense against a lawsuit where harm occurs as a result of a criminal act not perpetrated by the owner or agent of the property. Essentially a notice that you are responsible for your own security which has the virtue of being true.

  5. … consider a law that makes posting a “Concealed Weapons Permitted” sign a defense against a lawsuit…

    I’d suggest extreme care with the language to make such an affirmative defense rather than a defense.

    “An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant’s otherwise unlawful conduct..”

    Simply posting a sign approving of CWP to avoid lawsuits accomplishes little; a business’ behavior, or operational processes, could still make CWP a practical impossibility, or increase the difficulty level sufficiently to discourage CWP. For example, a business could use the “yellow star” method of control: You’re certainly entitled to CWP, but you must wear this special identifier while in our business.

    I suspect the bottom line here is the 2A – does it mean what it says or not? That’s, so far, proving a tall hill to climb, and while I have no doubt we’ll eventually get there, I can see the value in intermediate steps to support that ultimate goal, as long as those steps are well thought out and properly implemented.

  6. Yet another possibility is a law that treats this sort of thing as similar to “redlining” — void as being “contrary to public policy”. In other words, rather than give credence to “no weapons” signs, establish that these signs have no effect.

    There’s an excellent civil rights argument to be made. If the sign “whites only” is void, which certainly is the case, then clearly the sign “disarmed victims only” has to be void for the exact same reason.

Comments are closed.