Hb2456 - The Defenseless Victim Act Of 2002

[fivepaknh]

This could be a big step in turning the anti-rights nazis around. Send a copy of this letter to your legislators and ask them to introduce a similar bill in your state.

Senator ________,

Arizona legislators have introduced bill HB2456 - THE DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2002. I would like to see a similar bill introduced in ________(state). Here is the full text of HB2456:

THE DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2002

Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right

or ability to self defense.

REFERENCE TITLE: Defenseless Victim Act

State of Arizona (sponsoring house) Forty-Fifth Legislature Second Regular Session 2002

__.B. _____ Introduced by ________________________

AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by

adding new section 13-3117:

A.R.S. §13-3117. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.

A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.

B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12 (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14 (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Trespass and Burglary), Chapter 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related Offenses) and Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order).

C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to possess firearms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.



This web page explains the bill further: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=3122

Thank You,

______(your name and municipality)

[Quartus]

Ooooohhhh! I LIKES it!




I'll be sending this one to a senator or two!

[BogBabe]

What captainHoek said. I like it too, and I'll be sending it along to my legislators.

[HankB]

Normally I don't "shout" using all caps, but THIS LOOKS LIKE A MODEL FOR NATIONWIDE LEGISLATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL!

One improvement I'd suggest - the INDIVIDUALS responsible for disarming a victim should be held just as criminally liable as the actual perpetrator himself. ESPECIALLY if the victim-disarmers are elected officials. (Politicians accepting legal responsibility for their actions? Aw, heck, I can dream, can't I?)

[Master Blaster]

A bill which allows you to sue the government for a crimminal act they did not commit is a good idea????

Sounds like a plaintiffs attorney full employment act to me.

The folks pushing this legislation are trial lawyers right.

This bill will not fly, who do you think will pay for the damages, you will the taxpayer, and of course the first case brought will cost a fortune to litigate for the taxpayers because the law will be challenged. I doubt it will pass.

Why not pass a right to self defense bill that provides for carry for those that want it and are law abdiding instead.??

[Yowza]

Why not pass a right to self defense bill that provides for carry for those that want it and are law abdiding instead.??

Because in states with shall issue CCW we already essentially have that. Except here in South Carolina and many other states where any business or individual can put a sign on their door and legally prevent you from defending your life with a firearm while you're there. There are only two options I can think of: make people liable or infringe on their private property rights. Neither one is without its problems of course.

Rick

[fivepaknh]

They may amend it to cover the government's ass. Even if it only held businesses liable that would be a step forward. "Gun free" businesses that potentially place you in harms way by forcing you to disarm. Luby's in Texas or the office shooting in Wakefield, MA or countless other incidents that could have stopped or at least cut short if one other person was armed.

There may be a slim chance of it passing, but if it's not introduced and supported by the public, there's no chance of getting it passed. All it would take is one gun friendly state and maybe others would follow suit. Your negativity only serves to the other side. All it cost is a cut and paste e-mail to your legislator or a 34 cent stamp. If we're not willing to do that, then we might as well give up.

[Jeff Thomas]

I know the author. This is NOT being pushed by trial lawyers. This is being pushed by pro-RKBA / self defense supporters.

Interestingly enough, we found out this week that Utah has similar legislation already on the books, albeit only covering governmental entities:

You can find it in Utah's statutes:

http://www.le.state.ut.us

53-12-301.1. Olympic venue secure areas -- Restrictions -- Rulemaking authority ---- Notice -- Responsibilities -- Liability.

(5) A cause of action may be maintained against the state for any injury where an individual can establish by clear and convincing evidence that:
(a) if a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm had been able to access the concealed firearm the injury would not have occurred to that individual or others; and
(b) the individual suffered damages as a consequence.
(6) Nothing in Subsection (5) modifies or amends Title 63, Chapter 30, Governmental Immunity Act.

And, here is an email from Alan regarding the latest version of this bill, and talking points for use with your legislators. Go get 'em!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Korwin" <[email protected]>
To: "Alan Korwin" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: [TUGLaw] Gun-Free-Zone Liability


> Gun-Free-Zone Liability
>
> This may be the most pro-rights gun bill to come down in many years. A
> version of the bill has already been introduced in Arizona (HB2456) with
> considerable support (12 sponsors!) and has excellent PR value even if
> it isn't enacted in its first year. A lot of very bad gun bills are
> planned, so it's critical to balance that with bills as positive as this
> one. Ask your legislators to at least look at the language and support
> it. It's about time!
>
> Thanks.
> Alan.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2002
> DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2002
> DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2002
>
> Talking Points & Bill Text
>
>
> "If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes."
> "If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes."
>
>
> (NOTE: Copy of the bill follows.)
>
> Originally called the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act, this bill recognizes
> that gun-free zones, recklessly made and typically with no alternative
> security provided, are known to be extremely dangerous.
>
> We have seen this recently in the Wakefield, Mass., slayings, the Luby's
> Massacre, and even the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, where pilots and
> passengers were defenseless, in the false name of security. Congress
> responded to that with the "Arm The Pilots" law.
>
> The Defenseless Victim Act basically says that, in public places, if you
> create a dangerous gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes.
>
> The idea that gun-free zones are safe is fraudulent.
>
> The unfortunate fact that many people believe gun-free zones are safe is
> a testament to the stunning power of American media, its well documented
> biases and the ease with which large numbers of people can be misled and
> manipulated.
>
> It is a mythology perpetrated by anti-rights activists and left-wing
> elites who can often be recognized by their beliefs that:
>
> 1 - self defense should be illegal,
> 2 - guns should be confiscated,
> 3 - no one but "authorities" should have guns,
> 4 - government can take care of you better than you can,
>
> and they're actively pursuing these goals.
>
> The anti-self-defense lobby would tell you to rely upon the police for
> your safety, but they always omit the inconvenient facts that:
>
> 1 - police have no legal duty to protect you, and
> 2 - they routinely respond only after an event to pick up the pieces.
>
> In the three examples above and countless others, the police don't draw
> their guns,
> they draw chalk lines when you're gone.*
>
> A person who would deny your right
> or ability to self defense is as violent and
> wrong as the person who assaults you.
>
> Self-defense against criminal assault is guaranteed in all 50 states and
> federally, as it should be, and is as old as the first written laws of
> civilization. Denying the fundamental right to self preservation is
> unjust, immoral, dangerous and should not be tolerated.
>
> The notion that gun-free zones are safe is fraud perpetrated on the
> public because:
>
> a) Only innocent victims like you and me are affected. Armed criminals
> ignore no-guns signs and could care less -- they're laughing at you.
>
> b) No alternate form of security is provided. You are knowingly and
> recklessly made vulnerable, while property management accepts no
> responsibility for your safety or their negligent behavior. The bill
> addresses only anti-gun-rights bigots who would callously disarm you and
> ignore your plight.
>
> c) Despite bias in news coverage and the fear-mongering left, privately
> held firearms have been repeatedly shown to deter and prevent crime in
> one scholarly study after another. Since the nation's inception we have
> known and embraced the freedom-giving truth that guns protect the
> innocent, and that this is good.
>
> Initial reactions to the Defenseless Victim Act have been highly
> supportive by knowledgeable people in the gun-rights movement. It shows
> all the signs of becoming a major national rallying point. This could
> turn into one of the key gun issues of the decade (literally the right
> to bear), especially if terrorist attacks continue and defenseless
> innocent victims are slaughtered. The PR value alone, forcing the other
> side to support helplessness and victimization, are worth the effort.
> Now is a good time to bring this issue into the spotlight.
>
> The bill has been introduced as HB2456, sponsored by a dozen
> representatives, in the 45th session in Arizona (2002). The legislators
> say it gives them something to sink their teeth into. Give your
> legislators something this good -- ask them to introduce the Defenseless
> Victim Act in your state, for all the right reasons.
>
> Some additional observations appear after the following bill text.
>
> This is good law, supportive of our fundamental rights,
> a deterrent to criminals who would perpetrate attacks,
> a winner in the publicity battle over gun rights,
> and it places responsibility squarely on those
> who would cause harm by their direct actions.
> It deserves to be enacted.
> Please give it your support.
> Ask your representatives to introduce and vote for
> the Defenseless Victim Act of 2002.
>
> Sincerely,
> Alan Korwin, Author
> Gun Laws of America
> Scottsdale, AZ
> 602-996-4020
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> THE DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2002
>
> Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such
> conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right
>
> or ability to self defense.
>
> REFERENCE TITLE: Defenseless Victim Act
>
> State of Arizona
> (sponsoring house)
> Forty-Fifth Legislature
> Second Regular Session
> 2002
>
> __.B. _____ Introduced by ________________________
>
> AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING
> A NEW SECTION.
>
> Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
>
> Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
>
> adding new section 13-3117:
>
> A.R.S. §13-3117. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.
>
> A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that
> creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from
> criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free
> zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm
> could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the
> event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally
> defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a senior citizen or a
> child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.
>
> B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include
> offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12
> (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14
> (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Trespass and Burglary), Chapter
> 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related
> Offenses) and Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order).
>
> C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall
> mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public,
> or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability
> to possess firearms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by
> statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------

[Jeff Thomas]

Continued ...

> OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS
>
> . It's critically important that pro-rights individuals put forth bills
> to keep the unfriendlies off balance and busy swatting at all the flies
> (like they do to us so effectively). Force the antis into
> defensiveness. If you want some ideas for outrageous affronts to the
> anti-rights crowd, check out Sunshine Gun Laws, under Position Papers at
> http://www.gunlaws.com.
>
> . If you have a problem with holding people accountable for death and
> mayhem they cause by enabling crime, then of course you'll be against
> the Defenseless Victim Act. That's the position I expect anti-rights
> bigots to take. Bring 'em on. If nothing happens, i.e., the bigots are
> correct and gun-free zones are pleasant, safe and crime free, then the
> bill has ZERO affect on anything. Personally, I think that facet is
> particularly edifying. Sort of like, what harm could it do?
>
> . Despite what some people have claimed, property rights are UNAFFECTED
> by the Defenseless Victim Act. Read it yourself and see. Gun-free
> zones are allowed, entirely at a property owner's free discretion just
> as they are now, property rights remain 100% intact. You can keep guns,
> ban guns, allow only 9mm, I don't care, and the new law is silent on
> this. There is NO coercion (and also no government spending!) in this
> bill at all. That's a big part of its beauty. In fact, only people who
> would ban your rights and ignore your plight are affected in any way,
> and then only if you're attacked on their grounds.
>
> . Also note that truly private property like your home or ranch are
> exempt from the bill. ONLY public property or property open to the
> public is affected. There is a clear difference (well, some diehard
> libertarians might not agree, but you can't please everyone) between
> truly private property (like your home) and a place that is open to the
> public and privately run, like a mall, or WalMart. Public places have a
> well established duty to provide a reasonably safe environment, and they
> have been getting a free ride on this issue, at your expense. They can
> still ban guns remember, and you can still go shop elsewhere.
>
> . All this does is make clear that whoever creates an obviously
> dangerous situation, by forcing the disarmament of innocent people
> entering, ("legitimate" coercion by the property owner) -- which they're
> fully entitled to do under the bill -- there's a consequence for that
> risky action. As there should be for creating such a self-evidently
> unsafe situation. And it only matters if the danger manifests, and some
> psychopath turns the hair parlor into a victim zone. If there's no
> assault, then there's no problem, and liberals can sleep tight thinking
> we're all a bunch of paranoids. Then they can pretend they're not
> quaking, while they wonder if they'll squeak through tomorrow too with
> their criminally misguided notions of safety.
>
> . You may find that your legislators object on grounds that are hard to
> justify. I've had some tell me the bill would be fine if it only
> limited businesses, and left government gun-free zones, like parks and
> buses, intact (talk about hubris!). Other legislators, including an
> attorney whose clients are in business, say businesses should be
> excluded but government must be controlled! Just tell 'em that gun-free
> zones are dangerous -- who sets them up is not the issue.
>
> . Try thinking of this as the Luby's Massacre Act. Maybe that will help
> emphasize the blatant and profound fraud of proposing gun-free zones as
> safety nets. The heartless, insensitive, hate-filled perpetrators of
> defenseless victim zones should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> . It's so much better when public places just let people come and go as
> they please, without signs and bans, to simply go about their business.
> This is how most public places act, and it is responsible and even
> patriotic. Think about it -- on a day-to-day basis, places without these
> deceptive gun-bans operate just fine.
>
> . After years in which we've been forced to defend assault, lethal
> capacity, accessibility and so on, it's time for us to have the moral
> high ground for a change. Think about what the antis will have to sound
> like to say they don't want any liability for murdered victims they had
> disarmed. They have to stand up for defenselessness. It's a good time
> for the Defenseless Victim Act.
>
> * This phrase from a Cartridge Family song is used with permission.
> http://CartridgeFamilyBand.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Permission to reproduce or circulate this message
> is granted provided credit is included.
>
> Contact:
> Alan Korwin
> BLOOMFIELD PRESS
> "We publish the gun laws."
> 4718 E. Cactus #440
> Phoenix, AZ 85032
> 602-996-4020 Phone
> 602-494-0679 FAX
> 1-800-707-4020 Orders
> http://www.gunlaws.com
> [email protected]
>
> Call, write, fax or click for a free catalog.
>
> Get our free gun-law updates, sign up on our home page.
>
> Alan Korwin is the author of seven best-selling books on gun law,
> including the unabridged guide "Gun Laws of America--Every Federal Gun
> Law on the Books, with Plain English Summaries," and state gun guides
> for AZ, CA, FL, TX, VA. This paper is part of an ongoing series, click
> Position Papers on our home page, or write or call for copies.
>
> "If you knew all your rights, you might demand them."
> (Steve Maniscalco)
>
> "After a shooting spree, they always want to take
> the guns away from the people who didn't do it."
> (William Burroughs)

TELL YOUR STATE LEGISLATOR TO INTRODUCE THIS BILL IN YOUR HOME STATE ... IF IT WILL SAVE ONE CHILD, ISN'T IT WORTH IT????

Regards from AZ

[Jeff Thomas]

One last point, to reemphasize ...

Most here on TFL know these "gun-free zones" are an outrageous fraud perpetrated on the public. If you run across a legislator who takes the dishonest and erroneous position that this is some bogus imposition on private property rights, just ask them if they support business fraud in general, just like Enron ...

Friends, this bill can make a difference. This bill will save lives. This bill will show the anti-self defense establishment for what it really is ... heartless and mindless.

Regards from AZ

[HankB]

A bill which allows you to sue the government for a crimminal act they did not commit is a good idea?

If the government, a business, or an individual aids and abets a criminal act by disarming the victim and making him unable to protect himself effectively, while at the same time this government, business, or individual fails to provide the safety they acted to prevent - yes, they should be liable.

[Selfdfenz]

Problem.....
Why only firearms. I can see how others might choose some other self defense element and be good enough to use it to prevent becoming a victim.
I am not one of those people, but, the articules have a bit too much tunnel vision and other devices should be included.
Personally I'll stick with the 1911.

Also, I don't go into gun free zones unless compelled too. (School to get the kiddos)

I [email protected] sure don't deal with businesses that do not allow CC and its not impacted my quality of life but it has affected their quality of income if only in a small way.

S-

[Azrael256]

No, absolutely not on private property. Public property, sure, great idea, but I will NOT have my private property rights infringed. If I say you leave your gun at the door, you leave it at the door, you don't like it? you don't come in. It is the absolute right of the owner of private property to determine who may have access based on any standard the owner determines at any time. The fact is that I would feel perfectly comfortable with a CCW holder on my property, but if you don't want my gun in your house/store/office you have every right to demand that I not enter with it, just as you have the right to demand that I remove my shoes when I walk on your carpet.

Holding government entities to a standard of protection is good, holding private property owners to a standard of protection on their own property, and then holding them criminally liable for any damages that occur as a result of their failure to comply is so close to blackmail that it frightens me.

[Jeff Thomas]

I don't think you read the bill ...