The State of Tennessee is about to take a big step forward with a new law that gives law-abiding citizens permission to sue for damages caused by not being able to defend themselves in gun-free zones.
An article posted on the gun rights news website Bearing Arms says the law, which went into effect July 1, is “a measure gun owners have been encouraging for years.”
According to the article:
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
In layman’s terms, any permit holder injured as a result of being stripped of their right to self defense, and their handgun, in a posted gun-free zone can file a lawsuit within two years of the event as long as they meet the following requirements:
- were authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident
- prohibited from carrying a firearm due to the posting of a gun-free sign
- the property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law and posted by choice
Can you imagine? Holding gun-free zone property accountable for injuries people sustained by being disarmed and left defenseless? Groundbreaking.
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, the vast majority of mass shootings, like the recent horrific nightclub shooting in Orlando, take place in Gun Free Zones.
On Friday singer Christina Grimmie’s was murdered in a gun-free zone in Orlando. Early this morning, at least 50 people were fatally shot at an Orlando night club — also a gun-free zone. In both cases the media has yet to report that these attacks occurred where general citizens couldn’t defend themselves.
Since at least 1950, only slightly over 1 percent of mass public shootings have occurred where general citizens have been able to defend themselves. Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but even if they had been present at the time of the nightclub shooting, they may have had a very difficult time stopping the attack. Attackers will generally shoot first at any uniformed guards or officers who are present (the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last year illustrates that point). Alternatively, they will move on to another place without uniformed officers.
In this particular case the police only arrived on the scene after the attack occurred. That illustrates another point: it is simply impossible for the police to protect all possible targets.
What do you think about Tennessee giving responsible gun owners permission to protect themselves from those who would rather see them defenseless in gun-free zones?
Think there ought to be a law allowing self-protection in your state too?