It would be great if we could find a way to flip the liability issue around 180 degrees. Corporations that limit an individual's ability to protect themselves and others should be liable for the results of that limitation, whether the limitation is effected (affected?) by policy against employees, or 30.06 signage against customers. If your actions increase the likelihood of injury and / or death, then you should be civilly liable for the results of those actions, IMHO, even if the actions are perfectly legal.ScottDLS wrote:I believe YUM Brands (based in Texas) Taco Bell franchises their restaurants. I would be surprised if 3 of the employees were carrying without knowledge of the owner of that location. But no doubt the corporation has some dumb antigun policies in their franchise agreements...for the 'children' and for 'liability' of course. Hopefully they will ignore them.
Pass legislation to this effect and insurance companies will start charging increased rates to companies that restrict gun possession. That would be a huge help to our cause.