Again, Momtahan is not questioning the ability of property owners to control what transpires there. He asserts, however, that if harm is done to the legal gun owner, then the person disarming the customer assumes responsibility.
According to the legislator, “All we want to make sure is, if you’re in the store or anywhere and it has a ‘no gun’ sign, then that store needs to understand they have absolute custodial care of that person.”
HB 1364 states “Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying…shall have a cause of action against the person, business or other entity that owns or legally controls such property.”
The obvious example is if a person is attacked at an establishment and rendered unable to defend themselves, they could sue the owner.
As currently written, the bill does not exempt any property owners. Therefore, it could include federal, state and local governments that habitually ban weapons.
According to Timothy Lytton of Georgia State University, the proposal may cover everything from sporting events and concerts to private homes where firearms are not permitted.
As for Momtahan, he said he agrees with the sweeping expanse the bill apparently covers.
“We have a litigious society, where we settle these types of things in a court of law, rightfully where we should.”
It is an interesting concept that will unquestionably see reasonable people disagree as to the merits of the bill. But disarming law-abiding citizens should not be a flippant decision as it may render them vulnerable to violent criminals.
The proposal’s progression certainly bears watching.
