Joseph writes: > Fine, so long as the place of business accepts strict liability for > all injuries, caused by an assailant, suffered by a disarmed employee > or visitor while on their sacred property.
Should this include the trip to/from the place of business? For most people there is no appropriate place to store a firearm other than at home before starting on the trip. > Disarming the permit > holder is an intentional interference with their right to PERSONAL > protection. There must to be an equal trade off. If the property > owner takes away someone's protection, they must provide an adequate > substitute. A "no violence" policy or sign is not sufficient. > Neither is an old duffer in a rental "uniform" sitting in the > vestibule. Even a SWAT team on the premises will will be of no help with respect to traveling before/after leaving the property . > In Minnesota, the original bill called for strict liability. ... Was this only for on-property events? -- --henry schaffer _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
