TexasCHLforum.com

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:44 am

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:19 am

PBratton wrote: ↑Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:54 pm So, would the flip side of this be that if I were hurt by someone with a firearm in a posted 30.07/.07 facility I could have recourse for not allowing me to defend myself?

I believe yes. You were prevented from defending yourself. Thus most likely a business or institution would be liable for your protection, if they did not provide an armed guard to offset your ability to protect yourself.

I would probably say no. You were the one who chose to go into a place that proactively prohibited license holders from entering while armed, so you made the risk assessment and chose to go to a place that you perceived was dangerous anyway. There is nothing in the law that states businesses MUST post 30.06/7 signs, so the ones that choose to do so (a minority) are exercising their right to prohibit something they deem undesirable or dangerous. You as the consumer or patron of that establishment are the one who must weigh the risks of going there and if you choose to go in, you have made the determination that the risks are manageable.

I know it feels like a double standard, but I think that is the way the law would see it. I don't know that this law will do a lot of good if it is passed, but it may incentivize some businesses to remove or not post the 30.06/7 signs.

PBratton wrote: ↑Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:54 pm So, would the flip side of this be that if I were hurt by someone with a firearm in a posted 30.07/.07 facility I could have recourse for not allowing me to defend myself?