If 'gun free' zones are too expensive, there is an alternative (Kansas)

Examiner ^ | April 1, 2010 | Kurt Hofmann

[george76]

In Kansas, a bill that would potentially add to the number of places where a concealed firearm could legally be carried has won House approval.

I said "would potentially add to the number of places," because the bill contains a caveat.

* The House bill would allow those with concealed carry licenses to have those weapons if the security measures in those building are not adequate. Supporters of the bill say posted signs that prohibit weapons in those buildings are not enough to ensure anyone’s safety. *

In other words, if the building, campus, etc. had "adequate" security measures, mandated defenselessness would still be permissible. So . . . what constitutes "adequate"?

All the hand wringing about the costs such a bill would entail, for keeping guns out of buildings, seems to ignore the obvious solution: don't pay a dime, and instead permit the people to take responsibility for their own security.

[bunkerhill7]

If ‘Obummer-free’ zones are too expensive, there is an alternative (Indonesia)

[Steamburg]

I thought Kansas was an idiot short when they sent Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen (zipped off a tart letter) Sebelius to Obamaland. However, this bill looks about as promising as Zero’s support of off shore drilling, maybe.

[bitterohiogunclinger]

“In other words, if the building, campus, etc. had “adequate” security measures, mandated defenselessness would still be permissible.”

I interpret this as saying that building owners must provide “total security” for everyone that enters their premises, and would by extension be totally liable if such security didn’t prove to be enough. Cool. I’ve been waiting for some of these “no guns allowed” fools to be sued.

[WOBBLY BOB]

"adequate":

[TChris]

...would by extension be totally liable if such security didn’t prove to be enough. Cool. I’ve been waiting for some of these “no guns allowed” fools to be sued.

Exactly!

The banning of guns came at least partially from a fear of liability for shootings. It goes both ways.

[MrB]

Posted signs keep the law abiding from carrying their weapons into the area - but only the law abiding.

[Myrddin]

I would add the caveat that mandating a "gun free" zone imposes a duty on the property owner to provide the necessary security. It also exposes the property owner to a lawsuit if an event occurs that results in injury or death that the owner's security failed to prevent.

If you don't want the exposure, keep your doors locked. Don't invite people onto your property if you don't want to take the responsibility.

[sig226]

want