imported post
I like it.
A lot. I hope it passes, and I hope that other states follow CO's example.
As to the objections mentioned here:
Obviously the primary liability falls on the shooter. Fine. Usually the shooter ends up dead, and was broke before he died, so there's not much point in affirming the right of injured parties to sue the shooter. More importantly, the goal is to dissuade not only local governments (like Denver) from establishing victim disarmament zones, but to dissuade property owners as well. Owners of commercial property are very cognizant of liability issues, and if they aren't their insurance companies will make sure they are. This is a powerful deterrent.
Next, yes, the victims already have the right to sue whoever established the gun-free zone. What legal precedents exist to show that such suits are likely to be successful? I think most property owners ban weapons because their lawyers advise them that doing so reduces probable liability. And those recommendations are accurate based on current jurisprudence. This law will change that in a hurry.
As for the treble damages crap... ahh, who cares? The normal damages are adequate and if some liberal pol wants to predicate their vote for the bill on its providing some "special" protection to their favorite people, who cares? Be assured that mall owners' lawyers will be very frightened by the idea that some of the people might be get even more money. That's a good thing.
The exemption isn't great, but I think it would be fine with a very small adjustment. It just needs to be modified so that the security measures are required to be sufficient that a reasonable person would expect them to be effective. Two rent-a-cops can not effectively protect a whole mall, particularly if no effort is made to actually enforce the weapons ban (i.e. no metal detectors).
Finally, there's the idea that the real goal is to ban gun-free zones, and this is an inadequate stopgap. I completely disagree. Sure, CO should pre-empt county and municipal ordinances and prevent those governments from setting up gun-free zones, but that doesn't affect the right of property owners to institute their own bans. And I think it would be wrong to tell property owners that they're not allowed to ban weapons. Their property, their right. However, if they allow the public on their property but require them to be disarmed, as is their right, it should be made very clear that they are accepting the responsibility for protecting those people.