State Rep. Bob Gannon (R-Slinger) is proposing the “Disarmed Citizen Compensation Act” that would impose liabilities on businesses that ban guns.
A state lawmaker wants businesses that ban guns to be held strictly liable for any gun-related injury that might occur in their premises, and to pay triple damages.
The “Disarmed Citizen Compensation Act” is the brainchild of Rep. Bob Gannon (R-Slinger).
“This bill will give the citizens of Wisconsin a better chance of defending themselves and their loved ones against this scourge of terrorist activity,” Gannon said in a news release.
[…]
Gannon’s bill would discourage businesses from posting signs stating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited on the premises. That option was part of Wisconsin’s concealed carry law. License holders who violate the restrictions can be subject to a fine of up to $1,000.
Wisconsin became the 49th state to allow concealed weapons in 2011 with the passage of Act 35. More than 300,000 people have since obtained permits.
To encourage businesses to allow concealed carry, the concealed carry law provided owners immunity from any liability that may from any gun incident on the premises.
But the law didn’t address liability in the opposite scenario — a business that posts a weapons ban and has a gun incident.
Under Gannon’s bill the liability would attach automatically. In other words, if someone — a concealed carry permit holder or otherwise — injured or killed someone with a gun inside a store that had a sign prohibiting weapons, the business would be on the hook for triple the damages to any victims.
Gannon, who is in the property and casualty insurance business, said he was not aware of any similar law in other states.
Anyone surprised at this step of punishing people who don’t want guns on their premises? I think uStates has become the living embodiment of The Peter Principle.
Are you fucking kidding me? Do they seriously believe that guns everywhere is the way to tackle gun violence? Or are they actually trying to promote random, pointless murders?
And his business is probably more than willing to sell liability insurance.
“Do they seriously believe that guns everywhere is the way to tackle gun violence?”
Yes. Yes they do. They live in a fantasy movie world where they are the action hero saving the day. They have no conception of the chaotic real world. They see the world as if it were being filmed by movie cameras where each important detail is lovingly zoomed in on and noticed by the hero before the bad guy does anything.
I sure wish the Black Panthers were around today. “Hey NRA we appreciate your efforts to make sure we have military weaponry!”
Kengi:
They have no conception of the chaotic real world
More telling: they don’t understand strategy. In the weird hypothetical situation that all those guns were needed to overthrow the US government… Uh…. They wouldn’t be needed. We, the people, sit across the US army’s supply lines. In case nobody noticed, we feed and clothe them and give them gas and ammo. If enough of the people wanted to shut the country down it’d be a short scorched earth campaign and the army would dissolve. No shooty bang bang required.
What are the odds that Rep. Gannon is also in favour of allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBT customers on the basis of “religious freedom”?
I have no idea if Wisconsin is one of those states which allows carrying weaponry in the state capital building (most(?) don’t (except for police and similar), but some, such as Texas, do). Assuming Wisconsin does not, then surely this extraordinarily stooopid idea should apply there as well…
Kengi @3:
And bullets have eyes, never hit the “good” guys and always kill the “bad” guys.
Blf:
I have no idea if Wisconsin is one of those states which allows carrying weaponry in the state capital building (most(?) don’t…
You can be pretty sure that no state capitol building allows armed Black Panthers, but a few might be OK with white supremacists (whether overt or implicit) It is because of the selective arming/disarming parts of the population that we can see that the underlying principle being expressed is racism, not “anti government” or whatever explicit nonsense is acting as the fig-leaf.
Thought experiment: what if an armed hispanic group started showing up toting military grade weaponry? Why, that’d be about the one thing that would get the white right wing to suddenly be fond of gun control. Remember: the carry laws were almost entirely a reaction to the Black Panthers -- gotta disarm those guys!!
Philosophically consistent conservatives would agree that proprietors have the right to make the rules in their own businesses, and that customers have the choice of shopping there or not. This is the same argument often used to defend discriminatory practices on the part of business owners who don’t want particular kinds of customers. Placing burdensome regulations on business owners in order to encourage an outcome that should be left to the free market should be anathema to conservatives.
As it happens, while my views are generally liberal, I agree with what I think should be the conservative position in this particular case. It’s almost enough to make me wonder about the sincerity of some conservatives. Fine conservative politicians would never be inconsistent, or worse yet, lie to us, would they?