Quote of the day—Brandon Steele

If you’ve taken away that person’s ability to protect themselves, then it’s incumbent on you to protect them.

W.Va. Del. Brandon Steele, (R) 29th
October 14, 2019
W.Va. delegate seeks to hold ‘no-gun zones’ legally liable for shooting injuries
[H/T Glenn Reynolds.

The best defense is a good offense. This would appear to be a good offensive play against the anti-gun people.—Joe]

3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Brandon Steele

  1. Those who seek to impose “gun free” zones are akin to the insider partner-in-crime who leaves the department store’s back door unlocked at night so his buddies can rob the place. That insider partner may not be doing the actual robbing, and he’ll be sure to have an alibi, but he’s certainly complicit in the crime.

    So it is with all leftist/socialist/fascist/Marxist/collectivist/authoritarian policies, whether originating among Democrats or Republicans. Attacks on the second amendment happen to be among the more blatant of such crimes, for directly endangering people’s lives, and directly favoring the law-breaker at the expense the law-abider. Plus, in this case, the perpetrators of these Deprivations of [second amendment] Rights Under Color of Law (18 USC 242) are also the ones robbing us.

    The now all-but-abandoned, classic Protestant doctrine (and likewise the Bible) explains it thusly;
    Such is the way of the world; the beast gets it’s power from the dragon, that old serpent (the prince of the world), and the second beast, which is now known to be the United States, causes all the world to wonder after the first beast. Collectively it represents Babylon, or to be very specific it is the remnants of Rome supporting and upholding the doctrines, structures, and even the very trappings and traditions, of ancient Rome, Greece, Medo-Persia, and Babylon. It’s quite the cozy relationship. For now.

    That system is altogether anti-American and anti-Christian, while maintaining the facade of both America and Christianity. The two American parties, while putting on a show of conflict, are complicit partners. Just watch; that beast is already trying to form a new church/state global system, and there’s nothing anyone is going to do to stop it. For now.

  2. This is a concept I’ve wondered about for some time.

    There is unquestioned liability is any number of situations: if my dog bites you, even if it’s in my yard, I’m liable for damages unless I’ve deliberately taken steps to prevent it (“beware of dog” signs, restraining the dog, locking the gate, etc.) and even then if the dog has a history of aggressiveness or is a breed with such a reputation, those steps won’t help; my swimming pool must be fenced in to a certain minimum standard because it’s defined as an “attractive nuisance,” and so are construction sites; someone slips on an icy sidewalk in front of my house they can sue; the list goes on.

    Yet, the establishment of a defined area in which an individual’s ability to protect himself is eliminated or severely curtailed seemingly carries no liability at all, even when readily available statistics confirm that greater than 95% of all mass shootings (4 or more victims) occur in those defined areas and only very rarely in others.

    It would seem that such liability could be limited, or avoided, in those jurisdictions where the ability to protect oneself – CCW – is prohibited or so severely curtailed by legislative means as to not be available to members of the public (Maryland, California, NYC, D.C. et al) but in shall issue jurisdictions it would seem a slam dunk win for injury lawyers. I can also see someone who has not obtained a CCW, or someone not regularly accompanied by a CCW holder, being considered to have accepted the risk because by not partaking of the means for self protection they have demonstrated acceptance of similar risk everywhere, but a CCW holder denied the opportunity to legally provide for his or her self protection by establishment of a “gun free zone” would seem to have grounds for a suit.

    The argument of the CCW holder voluntarily choosing to enter a gun free zone can be presented – they don’t have to shop at store X, they can go to store Y which is not a gun free zone – but I’m not sure public accommodation laws fully support that (I doubt any court would accept prohibiting blacks or females at store X with the “they can shop at store Y” argument) the prospective purchaser was invited into the facility by both operation of a business open to the public and associated advertising, and the GFZ may be “the only game in town,” such as state-run DMV offices where the individual has no choice of selection or communities with minimal retail choices available.

    • Exempting may-issue (and do-not-issue) jurisdictions would be a terrible mistake. For one thing, it would be an incentive to create more of those. The right answer is to apply that principle, and make the state government and the licensing authorities be liable.
      Somewhat different but I remember it and it was a nice touch: when NH set up its shall-issue laws (before Constitutional Carry came in two years ago), one aspect of the law was that towns were required to use the state application form without changes or additions, and were specifically banned from adding their own requirements (stuff like fingerprints for example). To give this teeth, town officials were made personally liable for violations.

Comments are closed.