|
 |
|
|
Defenseless Victim Act of 2002By Alan Korwin Talking Points & Bill Text "If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes." (NOTE: Copy of the bill follows.) Originally called the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act, this bill recognizes that gun-free zones, recklessly made and typically with no alternative security provided, are known to be extremely dangerous. We have seen this recently in the Wakefield, Mass., slayings, the Luby's Massacre, and even the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, where pilots and passengers were defenseless, in the false name of security. Congress responded to that with the "Arm The Pilots" law. The Defenseless Victim Act basically says that, in public places, if you create a dangerous gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes. The idea that gun-free zones are safe is fraudulent. The unfortunate fact that many people believe gun-free zones are safe is a testament to the stunning power of American media, its well documented biases and the ease with which large numbers of people can be misled and manipulated. It is a mythology perpetrated by anti-rights activists and left-wing elites who can often be recognized by their beliefs that: 1 - self defense should be illegal, 2 - guns should be confiscated, 3 - no one but "authorities" should have guns, 4 - government can take care of you better than you can, and they're actively pursuing these goals. The anti-self-defense lobby would tell you to rely upon the police for your safety, but they always omit the inconvenient facts that: 1 - police have no legal duty to protect you, and 2 - they routinely respond only after an event to pick up the pieces. In the three examples above and countless others, the police don't draw their guns, they draw chalk lines when you're gone.* A person who would deny your right or ability to self defense is as violent and wrong as the person who assaults you. Self-defense against criminal assault is guaranteed in all 50 states and federally, as it should be, and is as old as the first written laws of civilization. Denying the fundamental right to self preservation is unjust, immoral, dangerous and should not be tolerated. The notion that gun-free zones are safe is fraud perpetrated on the public because: a) Only innocent victims like you and me are affected. Armed criminals ignore no-guns signs and could care less -- they're laughing at you. b) No alternate form of security is provided. You are knowingly and recklessly made vulnerable, while property management accepts no responsibility for your safety or their negligent behavior. The bill addresses only anti-gun-rights bigots who would callously disarm you and ignore your plight. c) Despite bias in news coverage and the fear-mongering left, privately held firearms have been repeatedly shown to deter and prevent crime in one scholarly study after another. Since the nation's inception we have known and embraced the freedom-giving truth that guns protect the innocent, and that this is good. Initial reactions to the Defenseless Victim Act have been highly supportive by knowledgeable people in the gun-rights movement. It shows all the signs of becoming a major national rallying point. This could turn into one of the key gun issues of the decade (literally the right to bear), especially if terrorist attacks continue and defenseless innocent victims are slaughtered. The PR value alone, forcing the other side to support helplessness and victimization, are worth the effort. Now is a good time to bring this issue into the spotlight. The bill has been introduced as HB2456, sponsored by a dozen representatives, in the 45th session in Arizona (2002). The legislators say it gives them something to sink their teeth into. Give your legislators something this good -- ask them to introduce the Defenseless Victim Act in your state, for all the right reasons. Some additional observations appear after the following bill text. This is good law, supportive of our fundamental rights, a deterrent to criminals who would perpetrate attacks, a winner in the publicity battle over gun rights, and it places responsibility squarely on those who would cause harm by their direct actions. It deserves to be enacted. Please give it your support. Ask your representatives to introduce and vote for the Defenseless Victim Act of 2002. Sincerely, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America Scottsdale, AZ 602-996-4020 -------------------------------------------------------- THE DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2002 Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right or ability to self defense. REFERENCE TITLE: Defenseless Victim Act State of Arizona (sponsoring house) Forty-Fifth Legislature Second Regular Session 2002 __.B. _____ Introduced by ________________________ AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding new section 13-3117:
A.R.S. [fl]13-3117. Gun-Free-Zone Liability. A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual 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. B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12 (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14 (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Trespass and Burglary), Chapter 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related Offenses) and Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order). C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to possess firearms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.
|
