Your cart is currently empty!
New Jersey Attorney General Promotes Gun-Free Zone Initiative Amid Debate Over Business Liability
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin has launched a new initiative encouraging businesses to declare their establishments as “gun-free zones,” sparking a heated debate about the legal and safety implications of such policies.
The initiative, which includes providing free “Gun Free Zone” decals and downloadable flyers, aims to enhance public safety by allowing business owners to prohibit firearms on their premises. However, the move has drawn criticism from some who argue that such policies may expose businesses to liability for violent crimes.
Ad
The Initiative: A Push for Gun-Free Zones
On May 7, 2025, at 18:24 UTC, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General (@NewJerseyOAG) posted on X, urging business owners to download a flyer or request a free decal to declare their property a gun-free zone. The post featured an image of a sign reading, “GUN FREE ZONE: FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR VISITORS AND STAFF, LEAVE YOUR GUNS AT HOME,” attributed to the Office of the Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin. The initiative builds on a 2024 announcement by Platkin, alongside the Office of Justice Data, which introduced a Permit-to-Carry Dashboard to track handgun permit applications while promoting gun-free zones as a public safety measure.
“Many business owners, in New Jersey and across the country, have wanted to keep guns off their premises, while the gun industry and its backers have pushed a guns-everywhere agenda,” said David Pucino, Legal Director & Deputy Chief Counsel of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in a statement last year supporting the initiative. The policy aligns with post-2022 Supreme Court decision trends, following New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down certain concealed-carry restrictions but allowed states to designate “sensitive places” as gun-free zones.
Public Response and Debate
The initiative quickly drew mixed reactions on social media. At 19:22 UTC on the same day, X user Hurachi “Clem” Stone (@hurachistone) replied to the Attorney General’s post, claiming, “Signs like that are illegal in most states. If you post one the property owner accepts all liability for any violent crime at the sight [site].” This statement, however, does not align with the broader legal landscape.
Legal experts clarify that gun-free zone signs are not illegal in most states. In fact, many states, including New Jersey, California, and New York, actively support businesses’ rights to prohibit firearms on their property. In states like Texas and Florida, such signs can carry legal weight, making it a trespassing offense to carry a firearm in violation of the sign, though the signs themselves are not illegal. The claim that such signs are “illegal in most states” appears to be a misrepresentation, possibly stemming from legislative proposals in some states that aim to discourage gun-free zones through liability measures.
The second part of @hurachistone’s claim—that businesses posting gun-free zone signs accept liability for any violent crime—also oversimplifies the legal reality. Under standard premises liability law, businesses can be held liable for injuries only if negligence is proven, such as failing to address a foreseeable risk of crime. While some states have proposed laws to hold gun-free zone businesses liable for injuries, these measures are not widespread. For example, Tennessee and Missouri considered bills in 2016 that would allow concealed carry permit holders to sue businesses if injured in a gun-free zone, but these proposals either failed or were amended. In Wisconsin, businesses that ban firearms lose liability immunity, but they are not automatically liable for all violent crimes.
The Liability Debate: A National Perspective
The question of whether businesses designating gun-free zones can be held liable for gun-related injuries has been a contentious issue across the U.S. Since the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, the concept of gun-free zones has expanded to include state-designated areas like bars, airports, and colleges. However, the 2022 Bruen decision prompted some states to expand gun-free zones, while others pushed back with liability-focused legislation.
In states like Georgia (2024) and Arizona (2002), bills such as the “Defenseless Victim Act” have been proposed to make businesses liable for injuries in gun-free zones, arguing that disarming lawful carriers shifts the responsibility for safety to the business. These proposals, often supported by gun rights advocates, have largely failed to pass due to concerns over property rights and legal complexity. Conversely, gun control advocates argue that gun-free zones reduce the risk of firearm-related incidents, with some insurance companies offering discounts to businesses with such policies.
Research on the effectiveness of gun-free zones remains inconclusive. A RAND Corporation study noted the difficulty in assessing their impact due to challenges in collecting data on local firearm policies, incident locations, and enforcement mechanisms like bag checks or magnetometers. Despite the lack of definitive evidence, the debate continues to polarize public opinion.
Implications for New Jersey Businesses
For New Jersey businesses, the Attorney General’s initiative provides a clear mechanism to prohibit firearms, but it also raises questions about potential risks. While there is no state law in New Jersey that automatically holds businesses liable for violent crimes in gun-free zones, they could still face lawsuits under general premises liability if negligence is proven. Businesses must weigh the benefits of a gun-free policy—such as customer safety and potential insurance discounts—against the risk of litigation or public backlash from gun rights advocates.
The broader national debate suggests that while gun-free zones remain a legal option for businesses, the liability question will continue to evolve. States like New Jersey are doubling down on gun control measures, while others explore ways to incentivize concealed carry through liability laws. For now, the choice to declare a gun-free zone remains a complex decision, balancing legal, safety, and public relations considerations.
Looking Ahead
Attorney General Platkin’s initiative underscores New Jersey’s commitment to reducing gun violence, but it also highlights the ongoing tension between gun control and gun rights in the U.S. As businesses navigate this landscape, they are encouraged to consult legal professionals to understand their specific risks and obligations under state law. Meanwhile, the public debate, as seen on platforms like X, shows no signs of abating, with both sides presenting impassioned arguments about the role of firearms in public spaces.
For more information on New Jersey’s gun-free zone initiative, businesses can visit the Office of the Attorney General’s website at the link provided in the original X post.
Leave a Reply