TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

Ruark wrote:Good point, Stinger. My comment was, perhaps erroneously so, based on my own self-protection. My wife has often said that if a business has an 06 sign and we go in unarmed and are killed/injured by a shooter, she will sue the snot out of them for denying us the right to self protection. You're looking at it from a broader perspective: "We are not a security team ... to protect stores." That's a little different, but is still a good point.

Any lawyer worth his salt would destroy that suit in five minutes. Mrs. Ruark, did you see the 30.06 sign in the window? Isn't that the reason that your husband disarmed? Didn't he know it was illegal to enter the store with his weapon? Yet, didn't you enter the store anyway, knowing that you were disarmed and that you might be in danger?

I'm not even a lawyer and I can see that.

stingeragent wrote:

Ruark wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote: If the law required metal detectors for just the 30.06 sign, I would bet that within a week of the law passing, you wouldn’t be able to find a 30.06 sign.

Or if liability insurance companies figured out that a big lawsuit was more likely to happen with disarmed customers and increased their liability insurance premiums, those 06 signs would disappear instantly.

This is IMHO a terrible idea and example. This "theory" assumes, there is a law abiding CHL holder in every store at every point in time which is not the case. Promoting that allowing a CHL in does not increase security 100% of the time, simply because there will never a CHL in every store all the time, and furthermore it is up to each individual CHL to act upon a given situation. We are not a security team sent in to protect stores. I'll agree the signs need to come down, so I can protect myself when I go in, and if it happens, others as well, but simply implying to put up metal detectors, instead of allowing a CHL holder in makes no sense. The whole concept of this argument would have to assume there is a CHL holder in every store all the time which isn't the case. If this law hypothetically were true and a store opted to take down their 30.06 sign instead of a metal detector, what happens when the robber goes in and their isn't anyone with a CHL holder in the store? The end result is the same irregardless, but this isn't an argument we will win in legislation.

VoiceofReason wrote: If the law required metal detectors for just the 30.06 sign, I would bet that within a week of the law passing, you wouldn’t be able to find a 30.06 sign.