TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:To me, the underlying problem is that there is less liability risk for businesses that prohibit firearms. This leads to insurance companies concluding that they need to have higher rates for businesses that allow firearms, if they insure them at all. If we can address the liability issue then market forces should change insurance companies pricing behavior.

Hold business owners (or their insurance companies) liable for shooting injuries or deaths if the business legally prohibited customers from having the ability to defend themselves. A store that has cash or valuables has an inherent risk of robbery. Patrons of that store are placed at risk by being present in the store. If the store owner prohibits those patrons from being able to protect themselves from this forseeable danger, then the store owner should be liable for the resulting damages.

An analogy would be a store owner that has a wet tile walkway on their property (inherent danger) and then requires all patrons to tie their hands behind their backs with rope (takes away their ability to defend against that danger) as a condition of shopping there. When the patron slips and smacks their face on the tile, the store owner should be held liable for the resultant damages from their restriction.

If insurance companies start paying out multi-million dollar judgments for stores where 30.06 was posted and someone was shot, but do not have to make these payments for unposted stores (or pay a much lower amount), then the whole insurance company pressure thing goes away. The insurance company execs may be living in Kalifornia or some such country and may personally be as anti-bill of rights as they come, but they are still business people and money speaks much louder than principles for them.

allisji wrote: If an insurance company asks you to install signs, you may perceive that they are pressuring you because they have the authority to raise your rates or cancel your coverage. If it's not a priority for the business owner then it's much easier to comply rather than fight. We know that about 3% of the population is LTC, but of that 3% maybe half of them care about gun rights as much as most of the people on this board. Most business owners simply don't have enough passion behind gun rights to want to fight with the insurance company or even just go find a new insurance company.

LeakyWaders wrote:I have not heard anything. I'll post if and when I do.

Jusme wrote:
Doesn't the head Blooming idiot billionaire, own one or more insurance companies?

Jago668 wrote:

joe817 wrote:We had a topic going on back in February very similar to this one. About the reason for posting a 30.06/30.07 signs because of insurance company requirements. IMO that is a manufactured excuse to put the signs up. For clarification and reasons why that's just an excuse, see:

viewtopic.php?f=129&t=82800&hilit=insurance

To make a long story short......BULL!

It is not always a manufactured excuse. My mother is president of a credit union. Their insurance rates were going to go up if they didn't put up signs. She knew she had people carrying in the credit union all the time, and she didn't care. Neither did the board. She knows if she just wanted to stop open carry she only needed a 30.07 sign, so it isn't ignorance. It is purely a financial decision. I don't know about every place, but I do know about one. She was going to get her chl until she found out she could carry in her car without it, and that was all she wanted to do. My stepdad carried everywhere he went, and I carry everywhere I go. So she isn't opposed to carrying.