TexasCHLforum.com

I think the reason suits against businesses for having 30.06/30.7 signs (or similar in other states) fail, and will continue to fail, is that despite the huge advance in recognition of 2A rights across the nation being able to defend yourself and carry a firearm is still not seen as a regular, everyday part of being an adult. A lot of people intellectually have come around that the notion that you should be able to do this, and it's great if you can, but don't actually believe it is a necessary part of their lives.

So when if someone gets hurt at a business for banning legal firearm carry and sues, most people, and at least most juries and probably judges, would see it as like trying to sue an airline for not letting you wear your own parachute and ending up in a crash. The fact that you're much more likely to get robbed/shot at your local gas station convenience store than die in an airliner crash wouldn't even come into play -- it's the cultural perception. So the movie theater in Aurora gets sued for not having security like many of the other places that were showing that Batman movie, but no one besides the relatively small community of people who actively think about self-defense (and act on that thinking) would even consider that banning legal carry could be a liability factor. I'll bet you can't find too many tort lawyers who would. This may change over time, but right now...no.