TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis,

I agree that nothing will stop a lawsuit per se since anyone can file a suit for any purpose. But the costs of a lawsuit were not the discussion. I was pointing out that liability, i.e. the odds of losing, were easily managed. Even if they ban guns and a city employee, say a dogcatcher, disobeys the policy and has a gun and holds someone at gunpoint, they can be sued. They should win, but they can always be sued.

I do agree that ignoring reality doesn't help, but addressing the actual issue of liability can help. Point out to them that nothing stops the lawsuits, even the banning of guns, if you want. That is reality. Point out the immunity to liability for using a firearm in a legally justified manner doesn't stop lawsuits. All of this is reality, but point out that the actual liability can be managed. that is also reality.

I don't see it as a legitimate issue at all. An employer can only be held liable for the actions of an employee under certain circumstances, such as a failure to train, failure to supervise, etc. If the employee is not acting within the constraints of their job, it is very hard to hold the employer responsible.

All an employer would need to do is write a reasonable policy that says that employees are not to use the weapon to defend the business or other workers in case of a crime and not to have the weapon out during business hours. I know it makes it kind of silly to allow carrying then, but if the policy included that they wanted the carrying to prevent criminals from breaking in the cars to get guns, the business would be fairly well covered. The bad news for us would be that they would need to enforce the policy if someone broke it, but liability is actually not that difficult an issue, IMO.

Obviously, the lawyers on the board would know more about this than I do. This is based on my one course in business law for a college degree.