I am ambivalent on this proposed Florida bill. On the one hand, if a business owner is going to deny patrons the right to defend themselves should the need arise, then those business owners should be liable should the worst happens. If Bob left his handgun in his car when he went to dinner at Pasta House only to then be shot by crazed shooter George, Bob has a good reason to be upset with Pasta House. Should Pasta House guarantee the safety of its clients if it implements a no gun policy? On the other hand, Bob was perfectly free to go across the way to the Linguini Palace that allows guns. Pasta House believes that a no gun policy will drum up more business and has every right to limit who or what comes on the premises.
I would lean toward the first view. The likely result would be a no gun insurance policy market arising with an amazingly low premium. As the policy would only have to pay when a disarmed gun owner - who was licensed for concealed carry - was injured or killed in a manner where being armed may have prevented it. Such a situation is going to be extremely rare. By requiring the business to take responsibility for its clients' safety, the government both supports citizen self-defense rights and the private property owner still has the right to restrict guns.
At the very least, it would be useful to see how such a policy works in one state. If it is a catastrophe, Florida can repeal it and other states can learn from the mess. If it proves to be a great success, other states can learn from that too. Federalism allows for such experimentation.
Of note, do the proponents of the law have a case where a gun owner was injured or killed in an attack at a business that restricted guns? I would think that is a miniscule number and that this law is more of a virtue signaling effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment