The Supreme Court has ruled that the authorities have no duty to protect you as an individual. The police’s job is to protect society as a whole, not you as a person. Honestly, that’s fine with me. While I respect police officers, by and large, I also recognize that the only way they could protect me as a person is to walk side-by-side with me all the time and I’m someone who likes my privacy.

Where this becomes a problem, though, is in gun-free zones.

In these places, which the law prohibits people from carrying firearms for their own protection, people are still responsible for their own safety despite the government neutering their ability to do so. The best example was Parkland where police failed to act yet no one inside was legally allowed to possess the means to fight back.

Now, a Michigan bill seeks to fix this issue.

A Republican state representative has introduced legislation that would hold government offices and private businesses liable if anyone is injured during a shooting in a gun-free zone on their premises.

State Rep. Gary Eisen, R-St. Clair Township, introduced House Bill 4975, which would revoke governmental immunity from lawsuits arising from injuries sustained on government property where guns are banned. Eisen is also the sponsor of House Bill 4976, which would make a government, business or individual that designates a property a gun-free zone responsible for the safety of individuals who enter it.

Eisen said the intention was to require a business or government that enforces a gun-free policy to take responsibility through measures like hiring security guards.

“I have to presume that no one will have a gun inside and I will be safe,” Eisen said. “They are telling me, ‘Don’t worry, Mr. Eisen, this is a gun-free zone. You’ll be perfectly safe in here.’ We know that is not the case.”

Eisen said by not allowing him to carry a gun, government and companies that declare their property a gun-free zone could be held liable under his bills.

I have to say, I agree completely.

If you’re going to disarm law-abiding citizens, you should be required to assume responsibility for keeping them safe. You need to guarantee their safety while on the premises–and not just within the building, but also outside the building between the door and their vehicle where, one would assume, they can re-arm themselves–or they should be allowed to take care of their safety themselves.

So far, there are only two co-sponsors on the bill from what I can see, though that might well change. If you’re in Michigan, you may want to reach out to your House representative and tell them you want them to co-sponsor this bill.

After all, if you’re going to be forced to disarm yourself to someone else can have the illusion of safety, the least they can do is put their money where their mouth is. If “gun-free zone” signs are effective, then it shouldn’t matter if they’re liable for injuries, right? Of course, we all know better. More importantly, though, they know better too, which is why I promise you that none of the gun control groups are going to say anything close to support for this bill.

If you’re not going to keep me safe, then at the very least get out of my way when I try to keep me and mine safe.