Gun-free zones need to be held accountable?

I got a news release from an outfit called gunlaws.com. An excerpt:

The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act of 2008 doesn't prevent public places from posting signs that ban the civil right to keep and bear arms. The zones however are known to be dangerous, as recent shootings at Virginia Tech and an Omaha shopping mall have demonstrated. The proposed law only addresses the negligent nature of such zones, making those responsible for disarming innocent bystanders liable for damages. It has no direct cost to government.

According to leading experts, "gun-free zones" are fraudulent, because no alternate means of security is provided, and even FBI-certified firearms owners cannot enter. This leaves only the criminal element armed, and free to wreak havoc without a meaningful deterrent.

Concealed-weapon laws enacted in most states were designed to counteract random shootings, but are defeated by the recklessly created zones that are anything but gun free.

At this time, I pass no judgment on either gunlaws.com or its proposed legislation. I merely pass this along go get people to think.

I have no idea how much traction such an idea regarding the liability of "gun-free zone" owners or managers would get if a legislator were to introduce it. My first guess would be "not much."

But it does address a question I've wondered about: How many people who walk into "gun-free zones" are worried about their safety and packing something the rest of us can't see? How many Marshall students walk onto campus each day with a pistol under their hoodie? How many people are walking around the Huntington Mall with a concealed weapon?