TexasCHLforum.com

Russell wrote:As an aside, that article did drive a bit of traffic to my site. It also resulted in an increase in support tickets getting opened by clueless business owners asking for me to send them a 30.06 sign.

Just as I feared. Anyone still doubt that the in-your-face tactics to support open-carry hurt not only open-carry but concealed-carry as well?

Chas.

cprems wrote:Is there any liability on a business that posts a 30.006 sign and someone gets shot or injured during a rampage?

I read somewhere that if they are not posted, there was no liability and if it was posted, the business was liable for failing to protect their customers. This may have been an opinion or article that I read, I don't specifically remember.

Anyone know if this is fact and whether it has ever been tested - either here in Texas or other States?

As a general statement, a business does not have liability if a customer is injured or killed by a 3rd party over whom the business has no control and for whom the business is not responsible as a matter of law. This is true whether or not the customer is a CHL who disarmed because of the business owner's no-guns policy. There are exceptions. The most common exception applies when the business is in a known high-crime area and there is a threat to employees and customers. Liability may well exist under those circumstances, again, without regard to whether the customer is a CHL. The negligence would be based upon not taking reasonable steps to address the known threat. It could be argued that under the high-crime area exception, being forced to disarm increased the danger to the customer, but this would be a case of first impression.

Because of the general rule mentioned above, business do not incur liability for failure to ban firearms on their property. Any statement or implication to the contrary in the MDA article is a lie.

Chas.

steveincowtown wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

TexasCajun wrote: The tactics that the oc crowd uses are detrimental to all of us.

There are those of us that disagree. Yes, some of their tactics are wrong, but not all. Painting with a broad brush just contributes to dissention in our ranks and provides the antis with material too. In the end you are entitled to your opinion, but do not include me in your assertion that what the OC crowd does is detrimental to us all.

Anygunanywhere

Correlation does not equal causation.

TPC §30.06 has nothing to do with open-carry, but the vast majority of voting Texans don't know that. Although we are approaching 800,000 CHLs in Texas, that's still a small percentage of the general population that know the full scope of §30.06.

The Chronicle and MDA have (I believe intentionally) used that widespread ignorance of §30.06 to tie the destructive, counter-productive antics of those carrying long guns into stores to hurt not only open-carry, but to attack TPC §30.06. Carrying a rifle or shotgun into a store doesn't further the cause of open-carry and yes, it does hurt all gun owners whether one agrees or not. The simple fact is this article could well prompt stores that post generic "no gun" signs to post 30.06 signs.

It's also quite possible that the "I'll carry my rifle in your store" attitude coupled with the Chronicle/MDA article could hurt the open-carry movement directly. Although it was not put on the legislative website because HB700 never received a vote in Chairman Pickett's committee, a committee substitute was laid out and debated. (Had HB700 been referred favorably from committee, the committee substitute would have been the bill that advanced through the process.) That substitute removed the problematic language amending TPC §30.06 and created a virtually identical TPC §30.07 dealing with open-carry. I have said all along that the chances of the Legislature requiring a business to post two "big ugly signs" to prohibit both concealed- carry and open-carry would be very slim, but as a result of this article it may now be impossible. So the open-carry camp may well be forced to accept the fact that in order to pass open-carry, all generic "no gun" signs will be effective to prevent open-carry. If anyone tries to amend TPC §30.06 to include open-carry, then the bill will be DOA.

As already mentioned, there's absolutely nothing vague about the requirements a business must meet to bar entry by an armed CHL. The Code is abundantly clear; it's only those who want to ignore the express language and argue that "close counts" that make such claims.

Chas.