The "Zone" Non-Defense by Jay Tea

With yet another mass shooting in a "gun-free zone," I find myself thinking a great deal about that concept.

The first idea is one that is bouncing around the blogosphere -- the notion that the powers that be that designate such places ought to be held legally liable for the carnage that erupts in them. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that they are making a promise -- possibly a legally binding one -- that "you don't need to defend yourself when you're here, because we'll protect you." They are using their authority as property owner (or manager) to supplant your right to keep and bear arms.

There's nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly legal and acceptable. Their place, their rules; if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Full Article ...

Sphere: Related Content