TexasCHLforum.com

bilgerat57 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Box wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

bilgerat57 wrote:I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......

I don't think there is any additional liability.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/0709-go-to-targ ... un-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing in that article leads me to believe Target is subject to any additional legal liability because they've requested people to not bring their guns in. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm thinking the victims lawyer might make the argument that by publicizing their new firearms policy they have created an atmosphere where an armed criminal would feel he had an advantage over a citizen where it might not otherwise exist. We've seen lawyers in the past get away with more farfetched arguments....(ie: hot coffee at mickey d's?) I'm just doing a bit of "devils advocate" thinking here.