TexasCHLforum.com

V7a, interesting post. It seems to be very different from how many are portraying the law. Is there more to it that may impose liability as,many seem to think or did you post the entire law?

Thanks for posting it.

I'm one of the last ones that would promote intentionally violating a business owner's right to restrict conduct on their private property and was not doing such. I also do not believe a business owner should be subjected to additional liability just for exercising his right to control the terms of admittance to his property.

There are very few places a person MUST go. If one doesn't like the terms of admittance one should find an alternative and not expect the property owner to assume responsibility for the patron's safety unless it involves negligence on the part of the business owner. We are not entitled to buy groceries in the town we live. What if the only grocery store closed?

Making the business owner liable is not the answer. The answer is to convince the business owner restricting law abiding citizens the right to carry in their building is a bad idea.

ScottDLS wrote: But if he doesn't notice that you're carrying, then somehow later discovers that you are, there's no automatic penalty, unless you refuse to depart.

Is this the case now? If someone finds out later that one violated the effective notice of a sign, the person can still be charged? What about if the notice was a verbal notice?