ETA: May as well post the whole thing.Relating to evidence in certain civil actions of a person's failure to forbid handguns on certain property.
My translation.... If you get injured on a not-posted property, the fact that the property is not posted cannot be held against the property owner.
This is my OPINION. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn express last night either.
CHAPTER 95A. ACTIONS INVOLVING THE CARRYING OF HANDGUNS ON CERTAIN
PROPERTY
Sec. 95A.0001. EVIDENCE OF FAILURE TO FORBID HANDGUNS. The
fact that a card, sign, or other document described by Section
30.06(c)(3) or 30.07(c)(3), Penal Code, is not posted on the
property of a business or any other evidence that a person failed to
exercise the person's option to forbid the carrying of a handgun by
a license holder on the property:
(1) is not admissible as evidence in a trial on the
merits in an action:
(A) against a person, including a business or
other entity, who owns, controls, or manages the property; and
(B) in which the cause of action arises from an
injury sustained on the property; and
(2) does not support a cause of action described by
Subdivision (1) against a person described by that subdivision.
SECTION 2. Chapter 95A, Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
as added by this Act, does not apply to a cause of action that
accrued before the effective date of this Act.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2019.