Am taking the several dozen comments here and at Instapundit and revising the previous post. Should be up early in the weekend. Then…from our lips to Limbaugh’s ear? I really feel like I don’t do enough to enrage all the right…er, left…people.
The gem of the suggestions was from “Shrike DeCil” over at Instapundit.
Add: Public places with policies of being a “Gun Free Zone” shall also explicitly assume the duty of protecting their patrons, and shall thus expose the property owner, the franchise owner, and the parent corporation to liability.
Obviously that’s going in. Bravo Shrike!
World's Only Rational Man 
Well, honestly, if I was at a “gun free zone” and would get shot, I would sue the establishment into the ground right away. I would argue that by declaring themselves a “gun free zone” they take responsibility for having this zone truly free of firearms.
If I still get shot there, then it’s their fault. They did not make sure it was truly free of firearms.
Personally, I find the notion of “gun free zones” hilarious. If they would work, why do lunatic spree shooters never attack gun stores, shooting clubs and police stations and always pick targets where they can expect the least resistance and the least amount of people carrying guns?
That being said, I have these posters “No tiger attacks allowed.” Let me tell you, it’s working. Ever since I hung up one I haven’t had a single tiger attack in my apartment in Austria.
I agree. In the Aurora CO shooting, the guy passed by four or five movie theaters to get to the officially “gun free” one. I have no idea why relatives of the slain didn’t sue.