TexasCHLforum.com

A new law in Tennessee places liability on the owner of a property posted as a gun free zone if someone who could be lawfully armed except for the posting is injured or killed on the property.

This is exactly what should be the law everywhere. We need to push this hard at the next legislative session in Texas. Details here.

Oh this would be so good if texas would do this or for that matter all states and also what i would like to see is some kind of mandatory security officer at each entrance checking everyone that comes in if they have sings , to me you have to hit these business owners where it hurts them ......there income and i really think a ton of these sings would come down.

GO VOLS!

Kenneth77 wrote:Oh this would be so good if texas would do this or for that matter all states and also what i would like to see is some kind of mandatory security officer at each entrance checking everyone that comes in if they have sings , to me you have to hit these business owners where it hurts them ......there income and i really think a ton of these sings would come down.

Signs

<MP<Ret>>

This needs to happen in Texas, sounds like a sensible approach to me.

Here's a link to the law: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInf ... 736&ga=109

Note that it includes property damage AND... it includes injury, death or damage while traversing to or from the place of business. So, if you're dumb enough to still shop at Whole Foods, and you leave your gun at home in the safe, whatever happens to you on the way to or from Whole Foods as a result of being unarmed, you can sue Whole Foods for.

This is what I call common sense gun law.

This sounds like a good thing at first, I would hope it to have the intended consequences and really make businesses take notice that disarming the public and making themselves a soft target means they assume responsibility. This could mean less signs and restricted areas, it could mean more posted security, or they might just assume the risk and continue to pander to the pansies.

But there is something in the back of my brain nagging me about the 'law of unintended consequences' ... for a reason that I've yet to put words or my finger on, something about this law bugs me. Maybe its my libertarian instinct that less laws = better, so a law to allow lawsuits seems backasswards.

This is one of several "common sense gun laws" that we need to push for. Another one is Nation wide reciprocity. If Texas has to recognize the validity of CA drivers licenses and NYC marriage certificates, then why wouldn't those places need to recognize the validity of a Texas LTC? This is, fundamentally, a civil rights issue. I'm sure Obama's AG just hasn't had a chance to get the lawsuit filed yet.

Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility for one's choices? Nobody forces us to do business with places that are posted. I mean why not open it up and let us sue everybody involved from the gun manufacturer on down to the gas station that provided the gas for the car the bad guy drove to the store in?

Oldgringo wrote:GO VOLS!

Indeed! Makes me proud of my home state.

Winchster wrote:Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility for one's choices? Nobody forces us to do business with places that are posted. I mean why not open it up and let us sue everybody involved from the gun manufacturer on down to the gas station that provided the gas for the car the bad guy drove to the store in?

If a business owner does something that makes it more likely you will suffer harm and then invites you to come on in, without taking any precautions to mitigate the dangerous situation they created, then you can sue them. That applies to all manner of situations and is not limited to just this case. For example, if I decide to clean my tile floors with an extra slippery wax, 5 minutes before I open for the day, then the person who slips and splits their head open may sue me. Just like my posting a sign that my business and customers are easy pickings for criminals and then not bothering to provide sufficient security. In both cases, the customer could have just stayed home, but they should still be able to sue me when my stupidity and lack of regard for the safety of my customers contributes to their death or injury.

The better option might be to not allow the criminal power of the State to be used via a sign to disarm private citizens. That way the owner could post a sign and you could ignore it and carry concealed and no one would be harmed or be breaking the law.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
If a business owner does something that makes it more likely you will suffer harm and then invites you to come on in, without taking any precautions to mitigate the dangerous situation they created, then you can sue them. That applies to all manner of situations and is not limited to just this case. For example, if I decide to clean my tile floors with an extra slippery wax, 5 minutes before I open for the day, then the person who slips and splits their head open may sue me. Just like my posting a sign that my business and customers are easy pickings for criminals and then not bothering to provide sufficient security. In both cases, the customer could have just stayed home, but they should still be able to sue me when my stupidity and lack of regard for the safety of my customers contributes to their death or injury.

The wet floor is a different issue, we don't possess an inherent ability to walk on wet floors. However, unless the business is physically restraining us, they've not changed our inherent ability to defend ourselves. We make the choice to accept the terms of entry, we aren't forced.

Vol Texan wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:GO VOLS!

Indeed! Makes me proud of my home state.

Me too.

I question that part about unarmed 'to or from' a place. That sounds like something written in the bill for the lawyers' $$$ benefit. Anybody could claim they were on their way to anywhere. What if the "no guns" place was only one of several stops? I call BoguS on that provision in the bill.