cacman wrote:
---
My opinion has always been that if a private business owner deems his property a gun-free zone, then it is the business owners legal responsibility to ensure the security of its patrons.
I think GFZ's are silly, but this bill is a ridiculous premise.
Who's to say that the injured legal-gun-owner would have had his gun at the time of the injury?
How can one say with certainty that the gun would have been used successfully in protection?
There are simply too many variables.
This bill is simply a ploy to spite the anti-gun lobby. Which does nothing except bring the cause down to their level.