I agree that it is a provision. I never said that the business owners would be held liable. I said they should be.TexasCajun wrote:Posting an enforceable 30.06 sign wouldn't be ground for negligence since the current chl law contains the provision. Yes you can file suit for anything, but most lawyers don't like to work for free. So you'd most likely go it alone. And the case would probably be immediately dismissed because of the legal provision for disallowing concealed carry.rotor wrote:So the answer is "Wrong" you say. I know what the business owner can and can't do. I know I have the right to go in or not. But if a business owner knowingly increases the risk of my being harmed by his actions I would think that a lawyer could use that as means for a successful case. I am not a lawyer and anyone can sue for anything but if I go into a store with a 30.06 and am harmed by a BG because I have left my weapon in my car.... gee whiz- isn't that how we got to have concealed carry in Texas in the first place- Luby's cafeteria. It was illegal to carry that gun into Luby's, not by a 30.06 but by state law. So, there is always the potential that a store that outlaws you from defending yourself might some day be involved with a negligence suit. Time will tell. If you are on someones private property, even illegally, and you injure yourself there have been succesful lawsuits against the property owners in civil courts.TexasCajun wrote:Wrong. The business owner has the right to post 30.06 or not to. You have the right to patronize that business or not in response. The posting of 30.06 does not obligate the owner to provide extra security any more than not posting 30.06 obligate you to carry when you do patronize. Nor should it.rotor wrote:RPBrown wrote:I voted yes you should be able to manage the store the way you want to. As a business owner, I have enough restrictions on what I can and can't do without someone telling me I have to be able to allow CHL's (although I do and have a sign posted that they are welcome) but it is my choice.
With that said, if a business owner has posted 30.06, I also feel that the business should be held accountable should someone get hurt in a shooting, stabbing or any other illegal venue, if a person could have defended themselves by having a CHL.
Just my .02
Your .02 means a lot and I agree. We don't have a chl to be macho ( I hope) but to protect ourselves in the event that force is needed. When I go into a place that forbids me to protect myself with a firearm I expect them to provide some kind of protection either a security guard or whatever. A 30.06 sign takes away my ability to self defend and at my age that does not mean my fists. You post a 30.06 then you should have the obligation to defend me if need be. I own a business and I don't care if you open or conceal. I also own the real estate and the business which is mre than most "business" do. Even your post offices, most are leased and not actually owned by the feds.
Same as in my wifes business. She owns a dog grooming salon. They have dogs on the floor all day long and there is a half door between the lobby and the grooming area that is locked from the inside but can be opened just by reaching over. This door has (and always has had) a sign on it that states "Employees Only Beyond This Point. Do Not Enter Unless Accompanied by an Employee ". This is to protect not only the dogs and them not getting out, but also the customers from getting bitten or knocked down. Now, they had to settle (actually our insurance settled) with a lady (first time customer) that decided to open the door anyway and come back. Just so happens the only dog on the floor was a very large Mastiff. Although friendly, the dog decided that this lady was a new person to play with and jumped on her knocking her down. Although she had nothing more than a bruised backside and a bruised ego, she decided to sue. Our attorney said it would be cheaper in the long run to just settle with her. Against my wishes, my wife decided to allow the insurance company settle for $12,800.00.
What I am saying here is that if they can be held liable with a sign posted, then IMHO, the provision protecting businesses from liability should be removed from the CHL statute. Or at least make a level play ground so to speak.