TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

jmra wrote:Companies are always going to feel safer operating within perceived norms. As we speak the norm is that perceived liability is lower restricting carry of firearms on their property than it is allowing carry. In order effect change, you have to change the norm. Only two things can change the norm;
1. A lawsuit that results in a huge payout by a company linked directly by the plaintiff to restricting ones ability to defend themselves and the presumption that the company by its action assumed the role of protector and did not fulfill its obligation in that role.
2. Legislative action requiring employers/companies who prohibit carry by employees and/or customers to assume the responsibility/liability of the role of protector.

Either one of these would dramatically change the norm and thus the policies companies would embrace in regards to concealed carry. Obviously my preference would be the latter.

Either one of these could dramatically change the norm ...
Maybe a Supreme Court decision, but I don't see either one happening or changing the norm.

It's all about money. They will do what they feel protects them the most. Do I see either one of these happening? No.

Companies are always going to feel safer operating within perceived norms. As we speak the norm is that perceived liability is lower restricting carry of firearms on their property than it is allowing carry. In order effect change, you have to change the norm. Only two things can change the norm;
1. A lawsuit that results in a huge payout by a company linked directly by the plaintiff to restricting ones ability to defend themselves and the presumption that the company by its action assumed the role of protector and did not fulfill its obligation in that role.
2. Legislative action requiring employers/companies who prohibit carry by employees and/or customers to assume the responsibility/liability of the role of protector.

Either one of these would dramatically change the norm and thus the policies companies would embrace in regards to concealed carry. Obviously my preference would be the latter.

txglock21 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

txglock21 wrote:To which my response is to have the employee sign a waiver talking full responsibility and releasing the city of any responsibility.( Ensert crickets chirping here.)

I'm on your side but you do realize you can only wave liability in regards to yourself. You might not sue if you shoot someone. I can't think of why you would but who knows, but nothing you sign or do can keep someone from suing the City if you are involved in a shooting while at work.

Good point. I doubt my employer will ever change unless forced to by the state, such as having to let us be able to keep in our personel vehicles. Baby steps I guess.

The liability issue is the biggest hurdle. One that many organizations will never see past.