Now HERE is a law that I would support!

[joeroket]

How about something to the effect of "criminal conduct shall include all felonies that are crimes against persons under RCW 9A."

[gregma]

This looks quite good.  Besides my concern at having specifically mentioned RCW's.  I believe "Crime of violence against a person" would be better wording for that. 

Another concern is this treble damage thing.  This law I believe is to protect those of us who wish to carry a firearm for protection.  Those protected by treble damages seem to be those who can not be expected to defend themselves with a firearm.  In fact those under 16 are legally prohibited from doing so.

I'm just curious as to why the treble damage for those special class of people.

[gregma]

"Violent offense" and "Serious violent offense" are defined by RCW 9.94a.030  We could use this.

     (50) "Violent offense" means:

     (a) Any of the following felonies:

     (i) Any felony defined under any law as a class A felony or an attempt to commit a class A felony;

     (ii) Criminal solicitation of or criminal conspiracy to commit a class A felony;

     (iii) Manslaughter in the first degree;

     (iv) Manslaughter in the second degree;

     (v) Indecent liberties if committed by forcible compulsion;

     (vi) Kidnapping in the second degree;

     (vii) Arson in the second degree;

     (viii) Assault in the second degree;

     (ix) Assault of a child in the second degree;

     (x) Extortion in the first degree;

     (xi) Robbery in the second degree;

     (xii) Drive-by shooting;

     (xiii) Vehicular assault, when caused by the operation or driving of a vehicle by a person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or by the operation or driving of a vehicle in a reckless manner; and

     (xiv) Vehicular homicide, when proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug as defined by RCW 46.61.502, or by the operation of any vehicle in a reckless manner;

     (b) Any conviction for a felony offense in effect at any time prior to July 1, 1976, that is comparable to a felony classified as a violent offense in (a) of this subsection; and

     (c) Any federal or out-of-state conviction for an offense that under the laws of this state would be a felony classified as a violent offense under (a) or (b) of this subsection.

     (41) "Serious violent offense" is a subcategory of violent offense and means:

     (a)(i) Murder in the first degree;

     (ii) Homicide by abuse;

     (iii) Murder in the second degree;

     (iv) Manslaughter in the first degree;

     (v) Assault in the first degree;

     (vi) Kidnapping in the first degree;

     (vii) Rape in the first degree;

     (viii) Assault of a child in the first degree; or

     (ix) An attempt, criminal solicitation, or criminal conspiracy to commit one of these felonies; or

     (b) Any federal or out-of-state conviction for an offense that under the laws of this state would be a felony classified as a serious violent offense under (a) of this subsection.

[John Hardin]

Okay, taking that into account drops out a whole section (yay!)

(1) Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government, that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from the commission or attempted commission of a violent offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 that occurs against an individual or individuals in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual or individuals 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) Liability for damages is not mitigated, reduced or eliminated by the provision of guards, whether unarmed or armed, or by any other physical security measures.

(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.

[John Hardin]

Another concern is this treble damage thing.  This law I believe is to protect those of us who wish to carry a firearm for protection.  Those protected by treble damages seem to be those who can not be expected to defend themselves with a firearm.  In fact those under 16 are legally prohibited from doing so.

I'm just curious as to why the treble damage for those special class of people.

Hmmm...

Disabled persons and senior citizens generally can't be expected to run away or hide very easily. They have a greater need for the tools of self-defense thus depriving them of those tools should carry a correspondingly greater penalty.

As for children... Children are also less able to defend themselves by virtue of small size and general lack of mature judgement. If a child is harmed it's assumed the parent would have protected them had they been able to - the damages apply to the parent. It could also be interpreted as a child being affected by having a parent shot.

(For the original logic you'd have to ask the AZ senators that introduced the bill this is modeled on.)

[gregma]

Another concern is this treble damage thing.  This law I believe is to protect those of us who wish to carry a firearm for protection.  Those protected by treble damages seem to be those who can not be expected to defend themselves with a firearm.  In fact those under 16 are legally prohibited from doing so.

I'm just curious as to why the treble damage for those special class of people.

Disabled persons and senior citizens generally can't be expected to run away or hide very easily. They have a greater need for the tools of self-defense thus depriving them of those tools should carry a correspondingly greater penalty.

As for children... Children are also less able to defend themselves by virtue of small size and general lack of mature judgement. If a child is harmed it's assumed the parent would have protected them had they been able to - the damages apply to the parent. It could also be interpreted as a child being affected by having a parent shot. (For the original logic you'd have to ask the AZ senators that introduced the bill this is modeled on.)

Ok, that sounds perfectly reasonable.

[gregma]

Okay, taking that into account drops out a whole section (yay!)

(1) Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government, that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from the commission or attempted commission of a violent offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 that occurs against an individual or individuals in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual or individuals 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) Liability for damages is not mitigated, reduced or eliminated by the provision of guards, whether unarmed or armed, or by any other physical security measures.

(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.

I think everything it pretty well covered!

[joeroket]

I think it turned out very well.

[John Hardin]

Now to get it in front of legislators.

Reminder, the full copy is here:  http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_gun_free_zones.txt

Work from that rather than the various discussion threads on the boards.

[joeroket]

One more thing just came to mind while I was reading the rationale section. I am thinking that there should be something in there that says something about a license to carry. Something like;

if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could
have helped the individual or individuals defend against such conduct and affected individuals were licensed to carry a concealed pistol by the State Of Washington or a state which Washington has a reciprocity agreement with.

My reasoning is that say you have 300 people in a mall and none of them have a CPL. Should the mall still be liable for the gun-free zone? Now I expect someone to say that you don't need a license to carry openly but the fact still remains that the majority of people that carry have a CPL regardless of thier method of carry because we need it to carry loaded in a car. I just don't think we should give every Tom, Dick, and Harry a legal reason to bring a suit against a company when they truly are not concerned with thier own safety nor do they wish to protect themselves.

What do you guys think? I just want to throw as much out there as possible.

[gregma]

Personally, I don't see a benefit or need to tie this to concealed carry, or a (what some believe) is a government license that goes against the 2nd Amendment to begin with.

This might encourage retailers to only restrict opencarry and allow concealed carry if we add this to the provision. 

The 2nd amendment does not dictate the standard of carry, and I don't believe this law should either.

Whether anyone in the mall has a CPL or not should not be a concern.  The fact that a person is restricted from carrying a self-defense firearm in a way convenient/comfortable to them should be the target.  Not to mention the tactical disadvantage one has when concealing their firearm.

Also, to say that a person who has been forced to hide their weapon to enter a mall then is killed because they couldn't draw it in enough time to defend them self, now is not entitled to be compensated because they had a CPL is just not the right thing to do.

This law should protect all who choose to carry a firearm for self defense against *any* restriction.

[joeroket]

I do agree with you 100% but I can see this as being the falling point.

I wasn't trying to tie it to a specific type of carry just that the only real proof to a claim is that one was licensed to carry and was prevented. You have to remember who we are trying to sell this to. The majority of politicians are, or at least seem to be, business owners/managers as well. But then again I guess it would come down to the trial as to whether or not the individual suing had the ability to as well as the desire to protect themselves.

[gregma]

This is going to be near 0% chance of passing even if we DO get it to the senate.  I realize that, however, we shouldn't compromise until if/when it gets to committee
 and are told that it either gets changed or it will die there.

And I think the trial is the perfect place to hash this out.  A person who sues under this statute that has never owned a firearm in their life will have a hard time justifying just how things would have been different if the "gun free" zone had not existed.

[joeroket]

Agreed.