While proponents of AB286 tout that lives, even a single life, can be saved by this bill and that is why it needs to be passed, what is failed to be talked about is the lives that could be possibly taken or negatively affected by this bill. In fact, section 2 of this bill may in fact do more to help criminals take lives than it does as a whole to save them.
- Let's say a local government no longer allows firearms in parks or trails, a citizen goes for a walk but is forced to leave the firearm the would usually carry at home, they are then attacked, beaten or worst killed by the subject
- Let's say a grocery store no longer allows firearms, a citizen goes to the store late at night to pick up a couple of items and since the store does not allow firearms they leave theirs at home or in their vehicle, as they are walking back to their vehicle they are attacked, robbed, beaten or worse, killed but had they had their firearm they could have saved themselves
- Let's say in the same situation as the last, while in the store, someone comes in and starts shooting random people, if the law-abiding citizen had their firearm they may have had a chance to stop the shooter from killing them or even others.
- should an innocent person be killed by a firearm that is stolen from a law-abiding citizen's vehicle as a direct result of Section 2 of AB286?
- should a law-abiding citizen who normally would have had their firearm on them in years past, but is prevented from doing so because of Section 2 of AB286, is killed maliciously in one of these "Gun Free" zones?
- should a law-abiding citizen who lost their ability to own or possess a firearm be killed sometime in the future where they would have normally had a chance to protect themselves but because of a simple mistake lost their RIGHT on what would have normally been a warning or a simple trespass in the past?