Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« On winning converts | Main | Media ignores ATF internal scandals »

Interesting question re: gun free zones

Posted by David Hardy · 4 January 2011 08:05 PM

There was some argument regarding whether a private entity which forbade firearms in an area, or in parked cars, might assume some liability to a person who became a victim of crime because they could not defend themselves. The usual counter was the concept that a person generally has no legal duty to protect someone else from crime -- phrased otherwise, to prevent someone else from committing a criminal act.

Reader CarlS points out an interesting passage in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). The suit was brought on behalf of a boy who suffered serious brain damage when county social workers ignored evidence that his father was beating him, and the Supremes held that this did not involve deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

In the course of distinguishing cases that allowed prisoners to sue for lack of safety and medical care, the majority noted:

"The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf. See Estelle v. Gamble, supra, at 103 ("An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met"). In the substantive due process analysis, it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf -- through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty -- which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means."

So the State's liability in the prisoner context does not arise from its knowledge that the prisoner is in danger, but from the fact that it has limited his freedom to protect himself...

· Self defense

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Critic | January 5, 2011 7:50 AM | Reply

Interesting find. But I expect they'll say that criminals get taken to prison whether they like it or not, while free citizens have the choice of staying out of the mall or other private property.

XD Owner | January 5, 2011 8:18 AM | Reply

http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

We need states to pass the "Gun Free Zone Liability Act." See the link above from Alan Korwin for more details. Great idea!

James | January 5, 2011 8:53 AM | Reply

It's been a few years, but wasn't there a building association in Texas that advised their members that posting "No Handgun" signs would increase their liability?

Mack | January 14, 2011 2:10 PM | Reply

Well, it helps to understand DeShaney case law, as it has become rather complex.

What you are referring to above is the "special relationship" doctrine, and that only applies to those who are in custody, like prisoners.

More interesting is the "state-created danger" doctrine. Here, it might be possible to argue that if the state deprives you of your means of self-defense (gun bans), then it has rendered you more vulnerable to harm. This is derived from the dicta of the Chief Justice:

"While the State may have been aware of the dangers that Joshua faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them."

Leave a comment