I have a close relative that lives near the border in Yuma and she has helped immigrants for years, but she now tells me to be on her property can be very unsafe. According to her it has gotten worse in the last year.
The only thing she has mentioned is that the immigrants are not as respectful and there are more of them than a few years back. Of late she has been harassed too.
I would certainly expect more now as the world returns to normal after Covid. I'm not sure what the lack of respect would be from...
Border crossing numbers slightly increase in Yuma - KYMAkyma.comhttps://kyma.com › news › immigration › 2024/02/01
Yeah all of these increases are about 15-20%. Which is about what I would expect as we get further from Covid and the US becomes more stable.
Your main point is covid reduced southern border immigration while Trump was in office. Prove it. USA covid travel restrictions started in March of 2020. How many crossed the southern border in 2020 and 2021 compared to say 2017 when Trump took office. Here is a more recent PEW chart to help you find the answer. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...e-end-of-2023/sr_24-02-15_borderencounters_1/
My main point is that people were running from the US during COVID. Almost nobody wanted to come here unless they had no other choice. It had very little to do with travel restrictions.
While it is established private property owners, including businesses, have the legal freedom to declare their property a gun free zone. There is a new legal wrinkle, that could turn into a big thing. If a person/business declares their property a gun free zone. They will become responsible for the safety of everyone on their property. Therefore. if a person that is legally allowed to carry a cancealed weapon, but prohibited by the owner, and is injured (physically and or financially). By someone illegally carrying a weapon. The property/business owner will be responsible for all exspenses and damages. This includes the entire property, including parking areas. Some states are now looking to make this a law. GA is the first to start the process.
I personally feel much safer with unarmed visitors on my property than with armed people, especially armed with concealed weapons. I have no hunting signs on my old growth borders already. I trust everyone who visits my piece of the mountain and like it that way. I don't need a "no gun law" to protect my property for what that's worth. I don't welcome uninvited people on my property. I pay taxes for local law enforcement to deal with any armed threats to my home.
And what if the person that is legally carrying shits their pants and hides? Runs out the door? Shoots the wrong person? Their weapon is poorly maintained and jams? Are they now responsible for all expenses and damages?
If a person shoots people and causes damage of course they are responsible for the damages. Am I misunderstanding the question?
I asked more than just shoot and cause damages. This proposed law is saying that if you don't allow a good guy with a gun in your store to stop a bad guy with a gun, you are liable. But what if this good guy with a gun doesn't do shit? Are they liable? Or are you liable because you didn't allow that right good guy with a gun into your store?
You would be liable for any damages caused to this person for disarming them and being unable to protect them. They would be liable for any damages they caused regardless of their weapon. You aren't liable for anything unless you prevent people from carrying protection. "Shitting ones pants" and running from an attacker is always the preferable option regardless of if you are carrying or not. Always avoid deadly conflict if possible.
So if I understand, the business owner would be responsible for cleaning the pants of those who had a carry permit but were not allowed to carry, while those who did not have a carry permit would be responsible for their own cleaning bills? barfo
Anybody the owner (or whoever made the rule) was restricting from protecting themselves to the full extent of the law.
Interesting question. I am not a legal expert. But based on 2 cases. My guess is no. Both involved police officers who did nothing to protect lives. 1) the Uvalde Texas school massacre. Police entered the school, heard shoots, left the school for an hour. 19 students and 2 teachers killed. Police not liable because there was no specific job requirement for them to stop the shooting. 2) Parkland Florida school massacre. 17 dead. Police on scene did nothing to stop shootings. Not held liable due to interpretation of caregiver law. If you think the police will protect you, think again. We are on our own. How each person responds is unknown, untill it happens. Even trained police officers.
