TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

If you do not want concealed carry in your store, you should be liable for the patron should something happen and they could not defend themselves

Conversely,if one of the Kroger bank robbery savers (previous post) were to open fire and hit another customer, should the store owner be liable for allowing guns to be carried in his/her store?

I'm all for CHL and maybe some sort of OC, I'm just sayin'....

Interesting question. Are they liable for my being injured or injuring somebody else in a fist fight? I was there legally and engaged another party that was there legally, but the store allowed me in. Is the state of Texas liable if I am on the street and hit someone else while engaging (firing on) a BG? I was there legally, carrying legally and hopefully justified, but failed to maintain a clean target picture and control of the fire arm.

No, the shooter(s) are responsible for where the fired round ends up. However, if I am legally allowed to carry a CHL, and I am otherwise legally allowed to be in the store, but as a good law abiding citizen am disarmed due to a 30.06 posting...they have opted to make anyone who wants (needs) to do business with them vulnerable. They have made it suddenly "wrong" for me to be able to defend myself and I would think, have taken on some of the liability for my safety.

They are held liable when they fail to make their store safe by cleaning the aisles (slip and fall), why shouldn't they be held liable for making the store less safe by prohibiting my lawful ability to defend myself and others?

Man, I'm walking a narrow line here. As an advocate of a republican government (not republicans but a constitutional government) I have an overwhelming aversion to anything that erodes the rights of the citizens. Property rights in particular, are sickening when violated (imminent domain, no smoking in private businesses). I also believe someone that owns a business has the right to expel anyone they want to, but there are "protected" classes that force the owner to allow anyone from a "protected" class in their establishment. If they want them out, they had better find a reason far removed from race, religion, sex, etc.

But I see a massive difference between a private home, private club or exclusive association and an establishment meant for public consumption. If I were running a store I could not see how I should be able to restrict someone access for a particular reason that is otherwise legal, especially when it does not affect anyone else. "I hate yellow shirts, get out!"

In my perfect world, a proprietor of a public business can not restrict someone who is legally doing anything from entering. If you do not want concealed carry in your store, you should be liable for the patron should something happen and they could not defend themselves. I believe the basis of a republic is that every one is a sovereign and our rights end where the other person's nose begins. Concealed carry does not infringe on someone's rights where as it can be argued that smoking does.

I've already said I would be good with open carry being allowed as long as my ability to carry concealed was left intact. I am not one that likes the BG's knowing if I am armed or not. But if you cater to the public and allow public access you should not be allowed to restrict entry by those that are exercising their rights, especially when it does not extend to others (sacrificing chickens in the toilet paper aisle). But the law allows this, we should be fighting to change that. I also do not believe we should "fear" an act like OC being passed based on what we believe will happen in the business world. Any move toward a more constitutional government is a good thing.

Let me be clear, I believe an owner of a property can restrict access to anyone they want. They can make it so no one is allowed access; but if you are going to allow public access how can you justify restricting those that are otherwise acting lawfully. Your either public or you're not.

A bunch of rambling I kn ow, but it's been eating me throughout this thread.

In the collective mindset of the rest of the nation, Texas remains on the cutting edge of frontier justice, guns a-blazin' and nooses swinging from the post oaks.

Don't be ridiculous, it's cottonwoods...you can't hang a clothes line from a post oak.

I can think of a few occasions and situations where OC would be appropriate if not preferable. If they pass OC however, I want the option to carry concealed left intact. I am one that does not care for the BG knowing my carry status.