TexasCHLforum.com

Since there isn't a 2013 session forum yet, I'll post this here.

While some folks have thankfully said they've never seen a compliant 30.06 sign, in the major cities I've seen more and more of them. Within the last few months my kids' pediatrician medical building was posted. I try to take my business elsewhere, but it gets harder and harder as more legally compliant 30.06 signs go up.

I noticed in Wisconsin's concealed carry law (SB93) that was just passed and is about to be signed, that it has a liability section covering legal posting.

From https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/docume ... 2FSB93.pdf

(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from
carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person
owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising
from its decision.
(c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more
employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub.
(15m) is immune from any liability arising from its deci-
sion.

Would a similar Texas provision, or some other legal change, discourage the use of 30.06 signs? I realize that they are a fact of life, and property owners have the final say. However, anything that would result in less of them posting the signs would be music to my ears.

artx wrote:Since there isn't a 2013 session forum yet, I'll post this here.

While some folks have thankfully said they've never seen a compliant 30.06 sign, in the major cities I've seen more and more of them. Within the last few months my kids' pediatrician medical building was posted. I try to take my business elsewhere, but it gets harder and harder as more legally compliant 30.06 signs go up.

I noticed in Wisconsin's concealed carry law (SB93) that was just passed and is about to be signed, that it has a liability section covering legal posting.

From https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/docume ... 2FSB93.pdf

(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from
carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person
owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising
from its decision.
(c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more
employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub.
(15m) is immune from any liability arising from its deci-
sion.

Would a similar Texas provision, or some other legal change, discourage the use of 30.06 signs? I realize that they are a fact of life, and property owners have the final say. However, anything that would result in less of them posting the signs would be music to my ears.

Perhaps, however, I think reversing it would be even more effective:

(b) A person that prohibits an individual from
carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person
owns or occupies is directly responsible for any liability arising
from its decision, including, but not limited to, the safety and well
being of every person on said property.
(c) An employer that prohibits one or more
employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub.
(15m) is directly responsible for any liability arising
from its decision, including, but not limited to, the safety and well
being of said employee.

Now THAT I would absolutely LOVE to see in Texas law!

dicion wrote:Now THAT I would absolutely LOVE to see in Texas law!

Only in your dreams.

WildBill wrote:

dicion wrote:Now THAT I would absolutely LOVE to see in Texas law!

Only in your dreams.

If I had a dream like that, I'd never want to wake up. At least not until I started getting hungry.

WildBill wrote:

dicion wrote:Now THAT I would absolutely LOVE to see in Texas law!

Only in your dreams.

Won't happen, but I think that's the only way you'd really get businesses that are against carrying to reverse their decision. Give them a direct financial incentive to allow it. I don't think the immunity clause would be enough to do it because I don't think it's primarily a financially motivated decision for those businesses.

Brian

dicion wrote:Perhaps, however, I think reversing it would be even more effective:

(b) A person that prohibits an individual from
carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person
owns or occupies is directly responsible for any liability arising
from its decision, including, but not limited to, the safety and well
being of every person on said property.
(c) An employer that prohibits one or more
employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub.
(15m) is directly responsible for any liability arising
from its decision, including, but not limited to, the safety and well
being of said employee.

Now THAT I would absolutely LOVE to see in Texas law!

I would add joint and several liability for any/all individuals enforcing the policy.