Now HERE is a law that I would support!

[gregma]

Got this from the incredibale BLOG "Armed and Safe".  I would LOVE to see this in WA State.  Yeah, I know, something about ice cubes in Hades...

Here is a summary of HB0477/SB0044:

Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Gun-free Zone Criminal Conduct Liability Act. Provides that any person, organization, or entity or any agency of government, including any unit of local government, that creates a gun-free zone is liable for all costs, attorney's fees, and treble damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in the gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. Defines "gun-free zone". Effective immediately.

Source: http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/12/gun-law-i-could-support-finally.html

[John Hardin]

Arizona version:  http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

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 person who is a member of a minority as federally defined, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.

The groundswell is building.

[joeroket]

I would bet that there are a number of State Reps that would take this on. I know Rep. Mike Sells requested an AG opinion but I am still getting a feel for him on the 2A. I have not found anything that indicates either way of his stance except for the rediculous bill Hougen? intorduced a few years back to ban assault weapons.

[gregma]

Ok, what we need is to take either the Illinois bill (which was the original), or the Arizona Bill.  Craft it so it meets WA laws.  And find someone that will sponsor it?

I'm completely new to legislation, so have no idea how this actually works.  Is this something we can put up as a referendum in a general election?  Do you think we can get 250,000 signatures for this?

[joeroket]

I doubt you could get enough for a referendum nor get it passed on a ballot. The best would be to approach a few pro 2A reps and let them take it to thier peers for co-sponsorship.

[John Hardin]

Ok, what we need is to take either the Illinois bill (which was the original), or the Arizona Bill.  Craft it so it meets WA laws.

I was going to work on that this weekend. If somebody else beats me to it, so much the better.

Apparently this subject hasn't come up at The High Road yet, so I've started a thread:  http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=323218

[gregma]

Ok, what we need is to take either the Illinois bill (which was the original), or the Arizona Bill.  Craft it so it meets WA laws.

I was going to work on that this weekend. If somebody else beats me to it, so much the better.

Apparently this subject hasn't come up at The High Road yet, so I've started a thread:  http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=323218

I'll be out of town on vacation this weekend, so won't be able to do anything.  I'll be checking this site, so when you get something let me know and I'll give it a once over if you don't mind.  Then we can get the ball rolling.

What do you think, have it go through the legislation?  Or go the Initiative route?  Or start one, then do the other if it dies?  I have no contacts at all legislatively, and no representatives that represent me that would do more than wipe their butts with it so I can't help on that end.  But I do have a couple of contacts about the initiative process.

[John Hardin]

What do you think, have it go through the legislation?  Or go the Initiative route?  Or start one, then do the other if it dies?  I have no contacts at all legislatively, and no representatives that represent me that would do more than wipe their butts with it so I can't help on that end.  But I do have a couple of contacts about the initiative process.

Try the legislators first, if we can get lots of people to write them. I would suggest writing to a gun-friendly legislator not in your district and ask them to sponsor it, even though they aren't your direct representative.

If that fails to work, then explore an initiative. If for no other reason, sending a letter to your rep costs less than getting petitions signed.

[Right Wing Wacko]

I'm sure some anti-gun administrator would interpret such a law as an "Exception to Pre-Emption" as long as they provided security.

One must be carefull how such a law is worded.

[John Hardin]

Okay, here's my first draft. Comments solicited.

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_gun_free_zones.txt

REFERENCE TITLE: Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act
RCW 9A.16 shall be amended by adding a new section 9A.16.130:

RCW 9A.16.130 "Gun-Free" Zones -- Liability.

(1) 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.

(2) For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses
specified under RCW 9A.32 (Homicide), RCW 9A.36.11 and RCW 9A.36.21 (Assault
in the First and Second Degree), RCW 9A.36.045 (Drive-By Shooting), RCW
9A.36.120 and RCW 9A.36.130 (Assault of a Child in the First and Second
Degree), RCW 9A.40.020 and 9A.40.030 (Kidnapping in the First and Second
Degree), RCW 9A.44.040 and RCW 9A.44.050 (Rape in the First and Second
Degree), RCW 9A.48.020 (Arson in the First Degree), RCW 9A.52.020, RCW
9A.52.025 and RCW 9A.52.030 (Burglary in the First and Second Degrees), RCW
9A.52.095 and RCW 9A.52.100 (Vehicle Prowling in the First and Second Degree),
RCW 9A.56.030, RCW 9A.56.065, RCW 9A.56.200 and RCW 9A.56.300 (Theft and
Robbery in the First Degree, Theft of an Automobile or Firearm), and RCW
9A.76.110, RCW 9A.76.115 and RCW 9A.76.120 (Escape in the First and Second
Degrees).

(3) For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any
building, office, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in
or upon any public conveyance, or in any place of employment, where a person's
right or ability to keep arms or to bear arms is infringed, restricted or
diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance,
utterance or posted signs, excluding those places and circumstances where
possession of a firearm is prohibited by RCW 9.41.300.

This says nothing about being exempt from liability if armed guards or other physical security measures are provided. RWW, I don't think your fears are justified.

[joeroket]

I'm not so sure vehicle theft crimes should be included in this. I don't think a business should be liable for your car being stolen because they have a gun free zone. It seems like apples and oranges to me. Also vehicle prowling in the second degree does not fall in the category that allows for the use of a firearm to prevent it but it does in the first degree. I think section 2 needs to be limited to felony's and not include any misdemeanor offenses.

[John Hardin]

Okay, I looked again at the definition of vehicle prowling 2 and I agree, and I already removed vehicle and firearm theft. This shouldn't be about property crimes.

I've also added a new section about armed guards and other physical security not limiting liability.

(2) Liability for damages is not reduced or eliminated by the provision of armed guards or other physical security measures.

(3) For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under RCW 9A.32 (Homicide), RCW 9A.36.11 and RCW 9A.36.21 (Assault in the First and Second Degree), RCW 9A.36.045 (Drive-By Shooting), RCW 9A.36.120 and RCW 9A.36.130 (Assault of a Child in the First and Second Degree), RCW 9A.40.020 and 9A.40.030 (Kidnapping in the First and Second Degree), RCW 9A.44.040 and RCW 9A.44.050 (Rape in the First and Second Degree), RCW 9A.48.020 (Arson in the First Degree), RCW 9A.52.020, RCW 9A.52.025 and RCW 9A.52.030 (Burglary in the First and Second Degrees), RCW 9A.52.095 (Vehicle Prowling in the First Degree), RCW 9A.56.200 and RCW 9A.56.210 (Robbery in the First and Second Degree), and RCW 9A.76.110, RCW 9A.76.115 and RCW 9A.76.120 (Escape in the First and Second Degree).

[joeroket]

That looks perfect John. I like the way this bill looks, now we just have to get someone to sponsor it. hopefully Bear will here something soon.

[gregma]

Does specifically spelling out each RCW really make sense in this?  That means that this law would have to be amended each and every time they add a new violence law.  Wouldn't it be more prudent, flexible and encompassing to saying something simply as...

"Any crime of violence perpetrated against the victim"?  Or something like that?  What if we miss something (like car-jacking).  This law might be almost impossible to enact, having to re-amend when the rcw's change might be completely impossible?

Just a thought.  I'll give other suggestions if any once I get a good chance to go over it.

[John Hardin]

Does specifically spelling out each RCW really make sense in this?  That means that this law would have to be amended each and every time they add a new violence law.  Wouldn't it be more prudent, flexible and encompassing to saying something simply as...

"Any crime of violence perpetrated against the victim"?  Or something like that?  What if we miss something (like car-jacking).  This law might be almost impossible to enact, having to re-amend when the rcw's change might be completely impossible?

Just a thought.  I'll give other suggestions if any once I get a good chance to go over it.

I was following the Arizona bill pretty closely as a template. It's a good point, particularly if the term "crime of violence" is defined somewhere in RCW.