Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead
I hope you don't think that would stop the opposition? They'll just roll out the rest of their litany of lies.
These nutjobs are just grabbing at any handy straws to try and stop us. Today it's liability. Tomorrow it'll be "for the children". They're running purely on emotion, not facts or logic.
btw, I'm against any legislation relieving these ****ers from any liability.
|
No, I don't think it will stop the lawsuit....and that's not what I am really talking about with all of this.
I just think this situation could help change the law on liability, which would be a good thing overall I believe.
....and why are you against a law that would relieve a property owner (not just restaurants) of liability because you shot at a bad guy and maybe hit an innocent bystander? Is it really the property owner's fault the innocent got hit just because the allowed you to carry in there?
Granted I don't think they property owner is liable as it is now, but that doesn't stop them from being in the lawsuit...and as it stands now, they have no specific protection under any statute.
However as I said, the flip side is, if it is clear the property owner has no liability for your actions and he still chooses to post, then yes, I think he should be liable if something happens to you and you may have otherwise been able to prevent it had he not caused you to disarm.