2nd Amendment, Big Government, Issues

Proposed bill would allow ‘gun-free zone’ victims to sue business owners

Photo: Michael Howard/Flickr (cc by-nc 2.0)

Photo: Michael Howard/Flickr (cc by-nc 2.0)

Some liberal gun-grabbers think victims of gun violence should be allowed to hold gun and ammo manufacturers legally responsible for the crimes of others. However, a new bill from a Missouri lawmaker flips that idea on its head. House Bill 96, proposed by Rep.-elect Nick Schroer, would allow victims of violence in “gun-free zones” to sue the business that banned them from carrying a weapon for self-defense:

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.

Schroer hopes the bill would prevent tragedies like the 2012 Aurora, Colo., theater shooting. The theater in which James Holmes carried out his attack was a gun-free zone.

Do you think other lawmakers should introduce a similar bill in their states? Share your thoughts in the comments!

H/T: PJ Media

  • disqus_rEWjgfyzIp

    About time some one put some thought in to the issue of gun free zones. If people want gun free zones they need to provide security for people since it is their property and their ideal of being gun free. Sure you have the idiot now that could care less about gun free zones and want to just kill people. If you have people that are trained and are carrying they could put such people down in a hurry and maybe lose 1-3 lives instead of the larger amounts of lives lost waiting 6 minutes or more for the cops to show up. Face it folks an active shooter no matter what they are firing can shoot at least 6 or more people in a gun free zone while waiting on the cops response time. A trained person even surprised could end that active shooter in under a minute.

    • efred1

      I agree; by not allowing potential customers their constitutional right to defend themselves in one’s store, it is tacitly implied that the business assumes the responsibility and liability of providing security of the customers in their place of business. And they should be held liable, both legally and punitively.


    The Luby’s massacre was a mass shooting that took place on October 16, 1991, at a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, Texas near Fort Hood Military base. The perpetrator, George Hennard, drove his pickup truck through the front window of the restaurant, and immediately shot and killed 23 people … Fourteen of the 23 people killed were women, as were many of the wounded, A woman doctor, who was having lunch with her parents, watched in horror as both parents were shot to death before her very eyes. The irony of this situation was that the doctor had left her hand gun in her car’s glove compartment to comply with the cafeteria’s no gun policy !

  • notfishing

    Absolutely, just as commercial buildings have to have enough escape doors or fire sprinkler, fire alarms.

  • jerry1944

    I think every store owner should be able to set his are hers own rules of what they want in there store and that includes those that want GOD in it and faggots out of it and i am still not going to Target but i do see there stock is going up

  • Ted Storck

    Good deal; maybe it will pass in Missouri, but liberals will fight it to the end.

Sign up for our FREE newsletter!

Sign up to receive daily updates, political news, action letters and additional messages from Conservative Republican News

View our Privacy Policy

Join our FREE Newsletter!