Sen. Steele has introduced SB 107 which would provide immunity to a person who fails to prohib an individual from possessing a firearm on their property or an employee from possessing a firearm in the course of employment.
The dynamic is that usually the whack job who shoots people doesn’t have much in the way of money. So, the civil suits focus on the person with the deep pockets. This would limit one avenue for doing that — the plaintiff would not be able to allege negligence based on failure to prohibit the shooter from having a gun even if the person had the authority to make such a prohibition.
The gun I see is the one the legislature is putting to the state’s head. My wife and I are entertaining the thought of someday moving back to Indy, which keeps getting better, yet its location under the rule of these rubes really makes me think twice.
I’m not exactly an NRA member, but I think I’m okay with this bill. I can’t make the case that a private person or business has a legal duty to prohibit firearms, so it makes sense to give them some protection from liability. That said, it does seem like solving the problem too far downstream.