This is not the first time Rep. Jim White has proposed this legislation, but it is back after the Lewiston, Maine, shooting. The bill would make property owners of gun-free zones liable if disarmed individuals were harmed as a result of that restriction.
Do you agree?
Gun-free zones appear statistically to be the more significant threat to public safety. Shooters, regardless of their grasp of reality, always seem capable of choosing locations where people are known to be disarmed. Making these areas less common can only limit victim-rich environments and, by extension, (perhaps) the incidents themselves.
A simple public safety measure opposed by public safety advocates, which Rep White is trying to get around.
White’s bill is similar to one that came before the Legislature in 2017 and was opposed by the Maine Gun Safety Coalition and the Retail Association of Maine. It was voted down in committee and didn’t get a vote by the full Legislature.
The idea has virtually no chance of winning the support of the Democratic controlled Legislature, which this year easily rejected efforts to allow guns in schools based on some of the same arguments.
But the bill highlights an ongoing national debate about the impact of gun-free zones, especially in communities that have been hit hard by gun violence.
“I think the situation in Lewiston might bring to light the necessity of this,” said White, who owns J. White Gunsmithing, a firearms shop in Guilford. “The most vulnerable among us are put in a more vulnerable situation because of these gun-free zones.”
We might feel inclined to say something like, how can you embrace the idea of the government adding another layer of enforcement upon property owners? The answer, I think, is that we’re not. We’re removing it. The Constitution is clear about the right to keep and bear arms. Principally, this is a defense against tyranny, specifically from your government. But there is no way to know precisely where, when, or how tyranny may present itself or through what machination. We uphold that right by prohibiting you from being disarmed anywhere you have a right to be (or have been invited).
As for tyrannous plots and intrigues (aside from the ones where we might think the government set up and triggered a shooter), many of the gunmen, after the fact, are revealed to be people known to the government (police, mental or public health, locals) who needed attention the State increasingly claims it is best suited to provide then does not—individuals who should trigger so-called safeguards that disarm others but never them.
The courts (also the government) have made it clear they (the government) have no obligation to protect you, so we presume this would include failing to prevent crimes whose scope rises as the result of laws that disarm us when it is clearly up to us to defend ourselves.
Rep, White’s law increasingly makes sense when confronted with all of that nonsense, but again, not in a state like Maine where Democrats increasingly control the government. Places where mass shootings will likely increase as a result of these facts. They will disarm you. They will allow others to disarm you. No one is or will be held responsible for what happens to you. Perhaps not even the shooter, who will likely end up dead, which is what many of them wanted or expected. Something an armed citizen could have provided much sooner with less injury and loss of life if permitted to exercise their natural right to defend themselves.