TexasCHLforum.com

I've yet to see a legal expert think that such a lawsuit is viable. It's promoted on the Internet but that's about it. Can anyone find legit legal scholarship that suggests such a suit is possible?

While not open carry - I found an article on parking lot liability from a law review:

http://www.law.uiowa.edu/documents/ilr/Steines.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. Duty to Provide Adequate Security
Victims of workplace violence may also claim that the employer
breached his or her duty as a landowner to provide adequate security.204
Landowners have “a duty to exercise reasonable care under the
circumstances to maintain the property in a safe condition,” which includes
“taking precautions to protect others from reasonably foreseeable harmful
acts of third parties.”205 Landowners can discharge this duty by ensuring that
their property has adequate security and by warning invitees of any known
dangers.206 If a landowner has no reason to anticipate a sudden, intentional
violent act on his property, however, courts cannot find him or her to have
breached this duty.207 Regardless, “it may be logically inferred that
permitting weapons in the workplace increases the foreseeability that
violence may occur.”208 As such, employers will likely face a greater risk of
liability in states that pass parking-lot laws.

--- Thus, legal theory seems not to support the contention you can sue for not being allowed to carry but goes the other way. Now, I didn't search all the legal literature - just a few past years. If there is a legal review article supporting the suit for not being allowed to carry, I'd like to see it rather than the common Internet speculation.

GEM