Quote:
The more I think about it, I would start from the position that there is nothing from which to have immunity.
It's not really immunity, it's that there is nothing from which to be immune.
I post a sign that says "Don't swim in my pond." It's a declaratory statement of prohibition. Your violating that sign is the only action. I didn't do anything from which I need be immune. I have only told you not to do something. YOU'RE the one who would need immunity.
Same thing with "Stay off my property with guns". I haven't done anything that requires immunity. Your having violated my sign with your gun is that action that would require immunity.
Specifically allowing CC is the opposite. They need immunity because they have actively allowed an action for which they can be responsible. The law gives them immunity from that action. You don't need immunity for posting a sign that tells someone else not to do something.
|
You do not seem to get the idea of what people are trying to say. They are talking about good people not following the no gun signs as far as they are immune which they would not . They are saying that if you do not restrict CC then you are immune. And second they are saying that if you do restrict CC that you may not be immune from damages caused from not allowing me to CC on your premises if something was to happen where a gun possibly could have prevented a injury .