Liability as a result of 30.06 posting

[rp_photo]

We always hear that businesses post 30.06 signs in order to reduce liability, but it seems to me that should a CHL be harmed on the property as a result of complying, that would be a greater liability and moral burden than any actions of a CHL who was legally carrying.

In other words, wouldn't the business be better off not getting involved and let Texas law decide whether customers can carry?

[kjolly]

Sounds good to me.

[Barbi Q]

I agree in theory but I don't know any case where a company was successfully sued for contributory negligence because they had a policy prohibiting firearms.

[wharvey]

I agree in theory but I don't know any case where a company was successfully sued for contributory negligence because they had a policy prohibiting firearms.

Same here. With the general resistance of the public with use gun crazy people carrying I doubt you'd find a jury willing to go along with this type of suit. Personally I agree that the business should be liable but I seriously doubt it would fly in court.

[rp_photo]

Why does the public refuse to accept the fact that a 30.06 deters the most beneficial gun owners while doing nothing to stop the worst ones?

Another law that should exist in my book is immunity from charges should a CHL otherwise legitimately use or show a weapon on a 30.06 or 51% location.

I say the best thing is to "somehow not notice" 30.06 signs in most cases while respecting 51% signs since the poster has no choice in the matter.

[rp_photo]

Why does the public refuse to accept the fact that a 30.06 deters the most beneficial gun owners while doing nothing to stop the worst ones?

Another law that should exist in my book is immunity from charges should a CHL otherwise legitimately use or show a weapon on a 30.06 or 51% location.

I say the best thing is to "somehow not notice" 30.06 signs in most cases while respecting 51% signs since the poster is required to have them by law rather than personal whim.

[chasfm11]

I agree in theory but I don't know any case where a company was successfully sued for contributory negligence because they had a policy prohibiting firearms.

Same here. With the general resistance of the public with use gun crazy people carrying I doubt you'd find a jury willing to go along with this type of suit. Personally I agree that the business should be liable but I seriously doubt it would fly in court.

I'm ever mindful that we are one SCOTUS voter away from rescinding Heller. I don't believe that all of the Liberal/Anti-gun judges in the system are on the Supreme Court. I cannot imagine some of the very liberal courts allowing a case to pass where someone was establishing their right to defend themselves or, as in this kind of a case, someone bearing responsibility for removing that right from an individual. There is no acknowledgement that people have the right to defend themselves by the anti-gun types, just like in the UK. So noone could possibly be guilty of removing a right that didn't exist in the first place.

[noosh9057]

We always hear that businesses post 30.06 signs in order to reduce liability, but it seems to me that should a CHL be harmed on the property as a result of complying, that would be a greater liability and moral burden than any actions of a CHL who was legally carrying.

In other words, wouldn't the business be better off not getting involved and let Texas law decide whether customers can carry?

I agree with you. I think that is one resun we dont see the signs very offen.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The general rule is that a property owner is not responsible for the illegal acts of an unrelated third party. There are exceptions, but I don't really want to go into that in case I have an opportunity to file a case on these grounds.

Chas.

[flechero]

Charles,

Without giving anything away (just a yes or no) would those same exceptions possibly serve as a defense to someone who successfully defends themselves, while inside a 30.06 location?

[unhappycamper]

Charles,

Without giving anything away (just a yes or no) would those same exceptions possibly serve as a defense to someone who successfully defends themselves, while inside a 30.06 location?

I'm pretty sure Mr. Cotton is talking about civil law.

[TX0303]

I've already told my kids and GF if I'm ever hurt or killed at work, or at a 30.06 location, sue the crap out of them. It may not fly in court, but they denied me the right to protect myself so the burden is now on them as far as I'm concerned. A good greedy lawyer would get a settlement out of court.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles,

Without giving anything away (just a yes or no) would those same exceptions possibly serve as a defense to someone who successfully defends themselves, while inside a 30.06 location?

I'm pretty sure Mr. Cotton is talking about civil law.

Unhappycamper is right, I'm talking about civil suits. Certain conditions in and/or around geographic locations can raise the duty of a landowner. Sorry, I just can't say more.

As for criminal law, if the self-defense shooting is righteous, you fine as far as the shooting goes. As for the trespass charge, there are other defenses that may or may not be available such as "Necessity." Remember also that if you are a trespasser, the Penal Code states that you have a duty to retreat before using deadly force, but case law may remove that duty.

Chas.

[HotLeadSolutions]

Charles,

Without giving anything away (just a yes or no) would those same exceptions possibly serve as a defense to someone who successfully defends themselves, while inside a 30.06 location?

I'm pretty sure Mr. Cotton is talking about civil law.

Unhappycamper is right, I'm talking about civil suits. Certain conditions in and/or around geographic locations can raise the duty of a landowner. Sorry, I just can't say more.

As for criminal law, if the self-defense shooting is righteous, you fine as far as the shooting goes. As for the trespass charge, there are other defenses that may or may not be available such as "Necessity." Remember also that if you are a trespasser, the Penal Code states that you have a duty to retreat before using deadly force, but case law may remove that duty.

Chas.

When the law states:
"The actor's belief that the force (or deadly force) was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:" ......

"(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used."

what constitutes "criminal activity"? Would trespassing?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles,

Without giving anything away (just a yes or no) would those same exceptions possibly serve as a defense to someone who successfully defends themselves, while inside a 30.06 location?

I'm pretty sure Mr. Cotton is talking about civil law.

Unhappycamper is right, I'm talking about civil suits. Certain conditions in and/or around geographic locations can raise the duty of a landowner. Sorry, I just can't say more.

As for criminal law, if the self-defense shooting is righteous, you fine as far as the shooting goes. As for the trespass charge, there are other defenses that may or may not be available such as "Necessity." Remember also that if you are a trespasser, the Penal Code states that you have a duty to retreat before using deadly force, but case law may remove that duty.

Chas.

When the law states:
"The actor's belief that the force (or deadly force) was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:" ......

"(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used."

what constitutes "criminal activity"? Would trespassing?

Remember, the presumption is available for situations arising in your occupied home, business or car, and when trying to prevent specific crimes committed against you or a 3rd person. It is likely that any violation of a penal statute/code would remove the presumption, but not the ability to engage in self-defense.

As for trespass, you aren't going to be a trespasser on your own property (home and business) and trespass statutes don't apply to vehicles. However, since the presumption is available when preventing specific crimes regardless of their location, it would be possible to be a trespasser while preventing one of the listed crimes. For example, if you were to see an aggravated robbery underway on adjoining property that is posted against trespassing, if you go to the person's rescue by entering the property you would be trespassing. Some prosecutors may try to argue the presumption is lost while others would ignore the trespass. If the intended victim was crying for help, then that is implied consent to enter the property, so there would be no trespass.

I know, it sounds like a law school exam answer.

Chas.