TexasCHLforum.com

Texas businesses that ban guns should be liable if unarmed patrons are hurt, Dallas senator says
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... r-says.ece

AUSTIN — Texas businesses that ask customers to disarm themselves will have to pay for injuries incurred in these gun-free zones if state Sen. Bob Hall has his way.

Hall, R-Edgewood, wants to propose a law that will make gun-free businesses liable for "any harm that befalls patrons as a result of being deprived of his or her weapon." The law, Hall says, would "encourage Texas businesses to do the right thing and allow their patrons to carry the firearms they have lawfully trained with for self-protection."
more at http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... r-says.ece

I think it's Patterned after the Tennessee law
Tennessee Businesses That Disarm Concealed Carry Permit Holders Now Liable for Their Safety
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ir-safety/
New law addresses liability for gun free businesses http://www.kxxv.com/story/32351422/new- ... o-lawsuits

ITS ABOUT TIME SENATORS READ OUR FORUM!!!!

.... Wait, are private universities a buisness? Same with daycares? .... Intresting to the the swing on this one....

Seems like we have a case for discrimination here...

If business can be sued and lose for not providing service to (insert protected class here) over a wedding cake etc. Improperly sloped tile floor or serving a bit cup of coffee.... A life safety issue should be an easy argument.

This will be VERY interesting to follow.

To have a clear, conscious & highly deliberate act specifically called out as vulnerable BECAUSE it limited the freedoms of a person who was injured during the commission of what is likely to be a felony crime by a 3rd party will be extraordinary for the gun rights movement.

It's not like leaving a wet floor and someone falls or no one repairs a crack in the pavement and someone trips where negligence or lack of action is the order of the day. This focuses upon WILLFUL decision making.

What is interesting is the insurance liability component here. IF something happens at such a location (which many of the posted 30.06 signs are in troubled areas by nature) the dollar amounts will balloon badly against a proprietor who chose poorly. Rather than play the odds of a CHL having an issue (which is proven near negligible) to choose this method is *many* orders of magnitude worse if something DOES happen.

@Charles - what do you think of this development?

OF

That must apply to churches, synagogues, mosques and tent revivals as well, eh?

The words were focused to a "buisness". Is a church and private colleges a buisness? Stadiums? Zoos and amusement parks?
I cant really find a google answer to this... Can a legal person chime in?

OnceFired wrote:This will be VERY interesting to follow.

To have a clear, conscious & highly deliberate act specifically called out as vulnerable BECAUSE it limited the freedoms of a person who was injured during the commission of what is likely to be a felony crime by a 3rd party will be extraordinary for the gun rights movement.

It's not like leaving a wet floor and someone falls or no one repairs a crack in the pavement and someone trips where negligence or lack of action is the order of the day. This focuses upon WILLFUL decision making.

What is interesting is the insurance liability component here. IF something happens at such a location (which many of the posted 30.06 signs are in troubled areas by nature) the dollar amounts will balloon badly against a proprietor who chose poorly. Rather than play the odds of a CHL having an issue (which is proven negligible) to choose this method is *many* orders of magnitude worse if something DOES happen.

@Charles - what do you think of this development?

OF

I fixed it for you

When you choose to go to do business with someone, it is your choice -- not the business's. SO be responsible for your own choosing and quit blame others because they are not wet nursing you. This goes both ways.

Let's crank this up to 11 and make it that "every location in the state" that bans weapons is liable.

That should keep those bailiffs awake in the courtroom.

While I think twomillenium has a point, I'm thinking about places you must go that're posted 30.06 like: Your place of work, most doctors offices, etc.

Why shouldn't they be held liable?

It is refreshing to see common sense come out. Just yesterday my wife told me that she had to disarm prior to going into the Hulen Mall (...our teenage daughter just "had" to get her school stuff there...).
She said that the entire time her Glock was in the car, she felt like a sitting duck.

twomillenium wrote:When you choose to go to do business with someone, it is your choice -- not the business's. SO be responsible for your own choosing and quit blame others because they are not wet nursing you. This goes both ways.

If my local xxxxxxxxxx business posts 3006, and there's not another such business in town, because the demand for xxxxxxxxxx won't support 2 such businesses, should I go without? Isn't my 2A right constitutionally protected?

RoyGBiv wrote:

twomillenium wrote:When you choose to go to do business with someone, it is your choice -- not the business's. SO be responsible for your own choosing and quit blame others because they are not wet nursing you. This goes both ways.

If my local xxxxxxxxxx business posts 3006, and there's not another such business in town, because the demand for xxxxxxxxxx won't support 2 such businesses, should I go without? Isn't my 2A right constitutionally protected?

Here's a way to use the current legal situation to do something similar:

If anyone, not just an LTC, enters a 30.06 or 30.07 posted establishment and is harmed by an armed criminal, he or she could sue because that person relied upon the establishment's representation that guns are not allowed and the establishment in fact failed to take effective measures to actually provide the promised safety.

I'm not aware of this ever being tried, but I'll bet it would get some pearls clutched if it were.

parabelum wrote:It is refreshing to see common sense come out. Just yesterday my wife told me that she had to disarm prior to going into the Hulen Mall (...our teenage daughter just "had" to get her school stuff there...).
She said that the entire time her Glock was in the car, she felt like a sitting duck.

I can promise her the Glock felt the same way, out in the car all by itself