Bill Would Let Victims Sue “Gun-Free” Establishments

Over the past few years, there has been a remarkable correlation between many high profile mass shootings and the “gun-free” policies in place where these tragedies unfolded. To a nearly exclusive degree, mass shooters have targeted institutions and establishments where guns are strictly forbidden. Is that a coincidence? Or are these regulations actually drawing psychopaths like flies to honey?

In Tennessee, a new bill would give citizens the right to sue properties with “gun-free” policies if they are injured by gun violence while inside the establishment. Sponsored by Republican state senator Dolores Gresham, the bill aims to put property owners on notice: Let visitors lawfully carry guns or be held liable for the consequences.

“It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property,” says the bill.

The bill is limited, which is to the credit of the Tennessee Republicans who authored it. This isn’t a sweeping NRA-driven piece of legislation. The bill specifically limits those entitled to sue to only those people who are already licensed to carry a firearm. And it further limits liability to only those circumstances where, if the plaintiff had been armed, he might have had a chance to stop the gunman.

Naturally, the left is going to attack this kind of legislation with everything in their power. Democrats are trying to accomplish the exact opposite; a new bill in the House of Representatives seeks to erase immunity for gun manufacturers. But when you really look at these initiatives side by side and take politics out of the equation, there’s no question about which one is rooted in common sense. Gun manufacturers have no reasonable liability when some crazed killer uses their weaponry. It’s preposterous. On the other hand, if a gun owner is forbidden from exercising his Second Amendment rights and then gets hurt or killed because he couldn’t protect himself…well, why shouldn’t the property owner be forced to defend his “gun-free zone” in a court of law?

It’s actually depressing that it has come to this. The issue of gun rights has become so politicized that it’s hard to find the truth anymore. That’s by design. The Democrats have obfuscated the facts for so long that the average American doesn’t even know what to think. As it happens, this issue is not nearly as complicated as the left would have the country believe. Americans have, by constitutional demand, the right to bear arms. The right to protect themselves from harm. Liberals want to take that right away, and they are willing to stoop to any level to achieve their goals.

With any luck, bills like the one making its way through the Tennessee Senate will prevail over the forces of tyranny.