TexasCHLforum.com

Pariah3j wrote: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.