37 replies to this topic

[Thomas Paine]

THIS IS IT! A brilliant strategy is contained in a recent article. Spread the word and tell your member of Congress to either introduce a stand-alone piece of legislation like this or vote for it if somebody else does.

 

"While politicians contemplate possible measures to reduce mass casualty attacks, they should consider passing laws that would impose criminal and civil penalties on any private persons and government officials who create and maintain gun-free zones without simultaneously providing effective armed security for all individuals while they are inside such hazardous man-made potential killing fields."

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator

 

Such a simple and elegant solution. It would

1) Save lives.

2) Save time- no more need for active shooter drills or any further discussion.

3) Save money - no need for armed guards, metal detectors or structural upgrades; in the 20 states that allow teachers to be armed, there have been no school shootings or accidents or injuries caused by firearms possessed by teachers.

4) Stop scaring the crap out of school children.

5) Protect the rights of law abiding citizens.

6) Answer a question that should be asked on any public policy issue - what would Thomas Sowell do?

 

If Beto O'Rourke had his way, this guy would be dead

Florida Homeowner Armed with AR-15 Kills 2 Home Invaders in Gunfight

 

and nobody would know that gun control laws are racist to the core. The resistance to the outcome of the Civil War lasted 145 years until this man put an end to it. He should be awarded a posthumous Medal of Freedom.

 

Otis McDonald, 1933-2014: Fought Chicago's gun ban - Chicago Tribune

 

In most states, teachers with concealed carry permits are afraid of being fired and charged with felonies if they decide to be prepared to respond to an attack on school grounds. It's a miracle that something like this hasn't happened here.

Beslan school siege - Wikipedia

 

Any discussion of gun control laws without mentioning gun-free zones, home invasions, terrorism or racism is disingenuous at best. If you're sick of globalists politicizing the murders and treating them like collateral damage on the road to their goal of confiscation, let your representatives know there is a common sense solution and their jobs depend on it.

 

[PeepSight]

I can see it for public spaces (parks/museums, etc) but on private property it would be difficult (homes, businesses, etc). It WOULD be great to put pressure on public officials in this way. 

[WitchDoctor]

I can see it for public spaces (parks/museums, etc) but on private property it would be difficult (homes, businesses, etc). It WOULD be great to put pressure on public officials in this way. 

Agreed PeepSight.

[Thomas Paine]

FYI: When I sent an email with this subject line to another one of my accounts, it never went through. So, I sent the identical content with a subject line of "Gun Control" and it arrived immediately. Spreading the word could be a problem if the subject of mass murder gets automatically routed to the trash bin. It appears to be a function of the email service of the recipient.

[Ne1fortennis]

"Did I do that?" Finally, a way to bring accountability to the geniuses who declare gun-free zones and avoid responsibility when their delusional virtue signalling gets people murdered in them. It's almost like Urkel has been running the country for the last 30 years.

[Ranger]

I think a combination of personal liability (no tort immunity for elected officials) would be enough to change the landscape dramatically.  Just make the private persons and government officials who create and maintain gun-free zones without simultaneously providing effective armed security personally liable for any injuries or deaths which occur.

 

Instead of dictating that premises had to be gun free for coverage, the insurance companies and officials would soon be demanding that they not be.

[Bubbacs]

I think a combination of personal liability (no tort immunity for elected officials) would be enough to change the landscape dramatically.  Just make the private persons and government officials who create and maintain gun-free zones without simultaneously providing effective armed security personally liable for any injuries or deaths which occur.
 
Instead of dictating that premises had to be gun free for coverage, the insurance companies and officials would soon be demanding that they not be.

Next time try the green color or try a even smaller print

[Ne1fortennis]

Hats off to George Parry for suggesting a more comprehensive solution than I did, and to Thomas Paine for providing context and perhaps a better way forward. I tried a petition last year and it even though it received a lot of support in this forum, it never had a chance to go viral:
 

Repeal Or Amend The Gun Free School Zones Act In Light Of The Otis McDonald Decision: A Cost / Benefit Analysis | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

 

If somebody wants to try the petition route with the civil and criminal liability idea, here's a little bit of advice: it requires a coordinated effort of at least 150 individuals to sign it on day one. Otherwise, either it won't see the light of day on whitehouse.gov or it will be too late to get enough support.

[Econ101]

George Parry had a great idea to eliminate public and private gun-free zones by attaching civil and criminal liability to them. The problem with the legislative approach is twofold. Pelosi would never do it without extracting something like an assault weapon ban in return, and more people would die while the sausage is being made.

[Quiet Observer]

I think a combination of personal liability (no tort immunity for elected officials) would be enough to change the landscape dramatically.  Just make the private persons and government officials who create and maintain gun-free zones without simultaneously providing effective armed security personally liable for any injuries or deaths which occur.

 

Instead of dictating that premises had to be gun free for coverage, the insurance companies and officials would soon be demanding that they not be.

 

The concept of legislative immunity goes back several centuries.  Without it legislatures would be subject to undo pressure from other branches and from numerous frivolous lawsuits from both camps on various issues.  No GFZs laws passed and someone is shot, the left sues because the legislature failed to allow them.  A legislature allows GFZs and someone is shot in one, the right sues. 

The legislature passes or does not pass laws on the environment, work safety, traffic safety, property rights, etc., and incident occurs the someone dislikes, various legislators face lawsuits based on how the debated or voted.  

 

 

“In America, the constitutions of 43 states provide legislators with a fundamental protection of free speech and debate.  This immunity protects legislators from punitive executive or judicial action.  The intent is to allow lawmakers to work independently and unimpeded by the threat of intervention from the other branches of government in the discharge of their legislative duties.  

Court decisions interpreting the extent of protection afforded by legislative immunity vary.  The interpretations have centered on a definition of “legitimate legislative activity.”  Such activities extend beyond floor debate and include the act of voting and views expressed in committee deliberations”.

http://www.ncsl.org/...e-immunity.aspx

[Ne1fortennis]

So, the politicians are immune when it comes to public property. But, the civil and criminal liability route could still work with private gun-free zones like theaters, malls and chains like Waffle House and Walmart. And maybe the attention they get would cause Congress to reconsider the 1996 Gun-Free School Zones Act, recognizing the landmark Supreme Court decision and the threats from terrorists and kid murderers on psychoactive drugs that have emerged since then.

[Econ101]

This is still a good idea and President Trump should use it. He should demand that Speaker Pelosi introduce legislation to attach civil and criminal liability to all individuals responsible for maintaining gun-free zones. When she refuses, he should roll out his "Executive Order To Abolish Kill Zones". If they're not surrounded by heavily armed security, that's exactly what they are.

 

Liberals have been getting away with murder - literally - for decades by controlling language, and they will continue as long as we let them. First it's language, then speech, then thought, then policy. Let's beat them at their own game.

[JTHunter]

This is still a good idea and President Trump should use it. He should demand that Speaker Pelosi introduce legislation to attach civil and criminal liability to all individuals responsible for maintaining gun-free zones. When she refuses, he should roll out his "Executive Order To Abolish Kill Zones". If they're not surrounded by heavily armed security, that's exactly what they are.

 

Liberals have been getting away with murder - literally - for decades by controlling language, and they will continue as long as we let them. First it's language, then speech, then thought, then policy.  Let's beat them at their own game.

 

I like the way you think !

[Thomas Paine]

 

This is still a good idea and President Trump should use it. He should demand that Speaker Pelosi introduce legislation to attach civil and criminal liability to all individuals responsible for maintaining gun-free zones. When she refuses, he should roll out his "Executive Order To Abolish Kill Zones". If they're not surrounded by heavily armed security, that's exactly what they are.

 

Liberals have been getting away with murder - literally - for decades by controlling language, and they will continue as long as we let them. First it's language, then speech, then thought, then policy.  Let's beat them at their own game.

 

I like the way you think !

 

So do I, except for one thing. I think you should have used "Executive Order To Abolish Kill Zones" as the title of your post. It really cuts through the Orwellian language and gets to the heart of the matter.

[Econ101]

The only way this can be solved in a timely manner is by the Supreme Court, as a civil rights and/or a national security issue, and Trump can force them to do it by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order.

 

But, here's an idea for Congress - maybe even an amendment to the Constitution. As Flight 93 proved, American citizens willing to take action can be effective at counteracting terrorist attacks. And they don't cost anything. Since teachers are among the most regulated individuals in the country and the same can be said of concealed carry permit holders, the intersection of those two groups could be called "a well regulated Militia". Let's formalize that designation and empower them to provide an armed response if necessary, like air marshals on a plane, anywhere in the country with the possible exception of heavily guarded government facilities.

[Quiet Observer]

 

The only way this can be solved in a timely manner is by the Supreme Court, as a civil rights and/or a national security issue, and Trump can force them to do it by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order.

 

But, here's an idea for Congress - maybe even an amendment to the Constitution. As Flight 93 proved, American citizens willing to take action can be effective at counteracting terrorist attacks. And they don't cost anything. Since teachers are among the most regulated individuals in the country and the same can be said of concealed carry permit holders, the intersection of those two groups could be called "a well regulated Militia". Let's formalize that designation and empower them to provide an armed response if necessary, like air marshals on a plane, anywhere in the country with the possible exception of heavily guarded government facilities.

 

The practicality of executive orders has already been debated ad nauseum over here. 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=73252&hl= 

 

Nothing is going to completely stop mass killings, even if the whole country goes Constitutional carry.  Not everyone is going to carry.  They will still have the right not to carry unless you are planning a forced conscription. 

A carrier may not be in the threatened group.  The slaying may be done in an isolated area.  If the attacker plants a bomb and the place blows up, it does not matter if everyone in the place is carrying. 

 

While it is not universal, a large percentage of teachers are left-wing and would not carry.  

[Econ101]

 

 

The only way this can be solved in a timely manner is by the Supreme Court, as a civil rights and/or a national security issue, and Trump can force them to do it by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order.

 

But, here's an idea for Congress - maybe even an amendment to the Constitution. As Flight 93 proved, American citizens willing to take action can be effective at counteracting terrorist attacks. And they don't cost anything. Since teachers are among the most regulated individuals in the country and the same can be said of concealed carry permit holders, the intersection of those two groups could be called "a well regulated Militia". Let's formalize that designation and empower them to provide an armed response if necessary, like air marshals on a plane, anywhere in the country with the possible exception of heavily guarded government facilities.

 

The practicality of executive orders has already been debated ad nauseum over here. 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=73252&hl= 

 

Nothing is going to completely stop mass killings, even if the whole country goes Constitutional carry.  Not everyone is going to carry.  They will still have the right not to carry unless you are planning a forced conscription. 

A carrier may not be in the threatened group.  The slaying may be done in an isolated area.  If the attacker plants a bomb and the place blows up, it does not matter if everyone in the place is carrying. 

 

While it is not universal, a large percentage of teachers are left-wing and would not carry.  

 

"The practicality of executive orders has already been debated" because of the post's title, which should have been something like "Strategy To Abolish Kill Zones". Nobody expects an executive order to be the last word on this issue. The goal is a Supreme Court decision. The rationale, suggested content, urgency and reasons why it should be upheld can be found in posts #1 and #18 at the link you provided.

 

"Nothing is going to completely stop mass killings, even if the whole country goes Constitutional carry." Nobody said it would. The goal is to dramatically reduce the incidence and severity of any future attempts at mass murder. The statistics are incontrovertible and suggest this idea would accomplish that objective.

 

"Not everyone is going to carry." So what? Nobody said they had to. This only applies to teachers who have or want concealed carry permits. That's what "intersection" means.

 

"A carrier may not be in the threatened group." So what? The goal is to remove perverse incentives and make a terrorist think there might be. That alone is a deterrent.

 

"A large percentage of teachers are left wing and would not carry." Again, so what? There only needs to be the thought of one air marshal on a plane to provide a deterrent.

 

Would a well regulated Militia stop every terrorist attack of every type everywhere? Of course not. But, it would stop some and it wouldn't cost anything. Compare that totally positive cost / benefit analysis to the disastrous Gun Free School Zones Act.

 

https://petitions.wh...enefit-analysis

 

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Quiet Observer]

So you have gone from this idea will solve the problem to it will help sometimes.  

The Air Marshall Service was established in 1962.  That did not prevent the 9/11 attack in 2001

Supreme court decisions do not always go the  way forecasters (left or right) predict. 

The petition that you cite was created in June 2018.  Only 71 people signed it. The goal was 100,000.  

If it was so brilliant, I would think that the President and/or his advisors would have adopted it or come up with it by now.  The man is not a dummy.  

 

No where have I spoken against allowing teachers to voluntarily arm or the significant reduction of gun-free zones.

[Econ101]

So you have gone from this idea will solve the problem to it will help sometimes.  

The Air Marshall Service was established in 1962.  That did not prevent the 9/11 attack in 2001

Supreme court decisions do not always go the  way forecasters (left or right) predict. 

The petition that you cite was created in June 2018.  Only 71 people signed it. The goal was 100,000.  

If it was so brilliant, I would think that the President and/or his advisors would have adopted it or come up with it by now.  The man is not a dummy.  

 

No where have I spoken against allowing teachers to voluntarily arm or the significant reduction of gun-free zones.

 

You ignored all the points I made and then you changed the subject. Okay, here we go again.

 

"So you have gone from this idea will solve the problem to it will help sometimes." 

I never said a Militia would solve the problem. I said it would be effective in counteracting terrorist attacks. Is that wrong? I pitched an idea for Congress here because this post suggested that Congressional legislation imposing criminal and civil penalties would solve the problem. It won't.

 

"The Air Marshall Service was established in 1962.  That did not prevent the 9/11 attack in 2001"

The hijackers were successful because they were able to breach the cockpit without any armed resistance from anyone on those planes. A service was established. So what? Where were they?

 

"Supreme court decisions do not always go the way forecasters (left or right) predict."

That's true and it is a risk. That's why an Executive Order strategy must be accompanied by a public relations strategy so well planned that it will preempt a media backlash and portray any opposition, even by the Supreme Court, as racist. Given the history of gun control laws, that shouldn't be too hard.  

 

"The petition that you cite was created in June 2018.  Only 71 people signed it. The goal was 100,000.  

If it was so brilliant, I would think that the President and/or his advisors would have adopted it or come up with it by now. The man is not a dummy."

 

The petition was a failure of social media expertise, not content. It received a lot of support and zero criticism in this forum.

 

http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=69290

 

Your attempt to demean it left out a crucial fact: it takes 150 signatures for a petition to be seen by anyone other than those who are made aware of it directly. Since it was never posted on the website and never had a chance to go viral, I'd be willing to bet that President Trump was never told about it. My point in mentioning it was that a Militia has benefits without costs, while the Gun Free School Zones Act has been a total disaster in terms of lives lost and money wasted without any discernible benefits.

[Quiet Observer]

Based on the number of postings in the 69290 thread it looks like about 15 members from here signed the petition. I would not call that "a lot of support"; "some" is probably a better description. Are we to believe that the signers could not get more friends to sign on?  Apparently few if any of 70 signers contacted pro-2A groups about it.  It would seem that that would have yielded thousands of signature, if the idea is so brilliant. 

Did anyone contact the leaders of the pro-2A groups?  The President was at the NRA convention this year, but no one mentioned the idea of using an executive order to end GFZs?  

He has used executive orders.  I would not be surprised to learn that he may have considered it in this area. 

 

Instead of debating here, how many times have you called, written, emailed the White House with this idea? Have you contacted the ISRA, NRA, GOA, Second Amendment Foundation or any other pro-2A group, asking them to contact the President or to file another petition on that site?  

[Thomas Paine]

 

The only way this can be solved in a timely manner is by the Supreme Court, as a civil rights and/or a national security issue, and Trump can force them to do it by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order.

 

But, here's an idea for Congress - maybe even an amendment to the Constitution. As Flight 93 proved, American citizens willing to take action can be effective at counteracting terrorist attacks. And they don't cost anything. Since teachers are among the most regulated individuals in the country and the same can be said of concealed carry permit holders, the intersection of those two groups could be called "a well regulated Militia". Let's formalize that designation and empower them to provide an armed response if necessary, like air marshals on a plane, anywhere in the country with the possible exception of heavily guarded government facilities.

 

 

I agree that a Militia would be very cost effective and stands in stark contrast to the Gun Free School Zones Act.

 

I also agree with clarifying comments in a followup that "Strategy To Abolish Kill Zones" is a better title for this post

 

http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=73252

 

and the goal is a Supreme Court decision, not just an Executive Order. It was helpful to focus attention on the fact that "The rationale, suggested content, urgency and reasons why it should be upheld can be found in posts #1 and #18 at the link."

[Quiet Observer]

 

 

The only way this can be solved in a timely manner is by the Supreme Court, as a civil rights and/or a national security issue, and Trump can force them to do it by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order.

 

But, here's an idea for Congress - maybe even an amendment to the Constitution. As Flight 93 proved, American citizens willing to take action can be effective at counteracting terrorist attacks. And they don't cost anything. Since teachers are among the most regulated individuals in the country and the same can be said of concealed carry permit holders, the intersection of those two groups could be called "a well regulated Militia". Let's formalize that designation and empower them to provide an armed response if necessary, like air marshals on a plane, anywhere in the country with the possible exception of heavily guarded government facilities.

 

 

I agree that a Militia would be very cost effective and stands in stark contrast to the Gun Free School Zones Act.

 

I also agree with clarifying comments in a followup that "Strategy To Abolish Kill Zones" is a better title for this post

 

http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=73252

 

and the goal is a Supreme Court decision, not just an Executive Order. It was helpful to focus attention on the fact that "The rationale, suggested content, urgency and reasons why it should be upheld can be found in posts #1 and #18 at the link."

 

 

So why are you and Econ101 spending time trying to convince people here?  Do you know of anyone here who has the ear of the President? 

I doubt that the President or any of the Supreme Court justices regularly visit this site.  

Have you contacted anyone of the groups or individuals that I mentioned in #20? 

 

So far your actions are no more effective than a bunch of guys in a bar deciding who the Bears, Sox, Cubs, Yankees, etc. need to sign to win their respective championships. 

[Ne1fortennis]

This could be a game changer. It's NOT a duplication of an earlier thread. It's looks to me like a distillation of the best ideas and a logical argument for the only practical solution.

 

https://www.defensiv...ng-problem.html

[Euler]

This could be a game changer. It's NOT a duplication of an earlier thread. It's looks to me like a distillation of the best ideas and a logical argument for the only practical solution.

The link lays out a 5-step process, of which step 1 is to rename GFZs to something else. The people who support GFZs won't support that. They honestly believe that the signs stop law-abiding individuals from committing the crimes they deeply want to commit in their hearts.

Step 2 is to allow concealed carry in GFZs. Well, if we could accomplish that, we could pretty much ignore steps 3-5. Unfortunately, the people who support GFZs want to ban all firearms everywhere.

[TomKoz]

^^^ This

[Ne1fortennis]

 

This could be a game changer. It's NOT a duplication of an earlier thread. It's looks to me like a distillation of the best ideas and a logical argument for the only practical solution.

The link lays out a 5-step process, of which step 1 is to rename GFZs to something else. The people who support GFZs won't support that. They honestly believe that the signs stop law-abiding individuals from committing the crimes they deeply want to commit in their hearts.

Step 2 is to allow concealed carry in GFZs. Well, if we could accomplish that, we could pretty much ignore steps 3-5. Unfortunately, the people who support GFZs want to ban all firearms everywhere.

 

WRONG! Steps 3 to 5 explain how to defeat those people and accomplish step 2.

[Euler]

WRONG! Steps 3 to 5 explain how to defeat those people and accomplish step 2.

So it time-travels then? Awesome!

[Ne1fortennis]

This is a short version for the benefit of those who ignored the post on the advice of the naysayers.

 

1) Identify the problem.

2) Find a solution.

3) Explain why it may never be implemented legislatively.

4) Explain why a landmark Supreme Court ruling is the key and what action to take.

5) Show how to win the message war.

 

The first reply from the Senior Moderator was:

 

"Excellent analysis! I could support that. It would wind up the dishonorable competition in knots."

 

The second reply from another Moderator was:

 

"That has to be the most truly common sense (I hate that term) approach."

 

https://www.defensiv...ng-problem.html

[Euler]

Heh. Here's what it actually says.

• Gun-free zones aren't gun-free, so start by renaming them to something else.
• Change the law to ban only open carry in GFZs and to allow concealed carry.
• Make owners of GFZs criminally and civilly liable for crimes in GFZs.
• Get Trump to issue an executive order abolishing GFZs.
• Get Trump to do Step #4 on a live TV broadcast, simultaneously calling anyone opposing him a racist.

Not one single part of that is even close to achieving realistic success. I'm in the choir when it comes to that sermon, but even I know bad Kool-Aid when I see it.

Feel free to read the link yourselves.

Edited by Euler, 30 November 2019 - 02:28 AM.

[mauserme]

In the link provided, Econ101 concludes by saying "It's now up to somebody close to the President to pitch it to him and it's up to those within a couple of degrees of separation to get it to the pitcher."

In broad terms the NRA has the President's ear. More specifically, Wayne LaPierre has it.

My opinion is that the NRA won't support executive action on this because of its potentially transitory nature. Without the NRA, I'm afraid it's unlikely to find any traction at the level hoped for.