TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 334843.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another interesting story of a property owner being sued for not "doing enough" to protect someone from crime.

IANAL, of course, and I may be reaching here, but seems there is at least a loose tie in to a discussion we have here often of what liability a property owner has when they allow or prohibit guns on property. Just imagine if this had happened at an office building and the woman was an employee with a CHL who was forced to leave her gun in the car by company or landlord policy ...

If I had the time and the connections, I'd like to follow the trail on businesses that post 30:06 signs to see exactly which entity (insurance risk management, lawyers, etc.) is behind ordering it. In some cases, it just the manager/owner like Grapevine Mills and Katy Malls. For the others, it would be interesting to hear their response to events like this one. It might tip the balance of perceived risk in another direction.

Then again, there are a lot of ostriches in the world and only some of them have feathers.

chasfm11 wrote:If I had the time and the connections, I'd like to follow the trail on businesses that post 30:06 signs to see exactly which entity (insurance risk management, lawyers, etc.) is behind ordering it. In some cases, it just the manager/owner like Grapevine Mills and Katy Malls. For the others, it would be interesting to hear their response to events like this one. It might tip the balance of perceived risk in another direction.

Then again, there are a lot of ostriches in the world and only some of them have feathers.

I would love to see such a lawsuit over a 30.06, and I believe it would be beneficial.

As I see it, a good way a business can protect customers is to not play God and second-guess well thought out Texas CHL laws.

Chasfm11, I have been in the commercial insurance business for 15 years. Not one time has the issue of concealed carry or weapons sign posting ever been mentioned by the underwriters. I've never seen it asked on an application. Nor have I ever had one require any type of posting or any anti gun rule be put in place. It simply has not come up or been an issue.

It is easy for companies and property owners to use their insurance company as justification for a policy they want to put in place when in fact the insurance company has nothing to do with it.

mojo84 wrote:Chasfm11, I have been in the commercial insurance business for 15 years. Not one time has the issue of concealed carry or weapons sign posting ever been mentioned by the underwriters. I've never seen it asked on an application. Nor have I ever had one require any type of posting or any anti gun rule be put in place. It simply has not come up or been an issue.

It is easy for companies and property owners to use their insurance company as justification for a policy they want to put in place when in fact the insurance company has nothing to do with it.

I'm glad to hear that the real answer is that there is no underwriting basis for anti-gun rules. That must mean that there are either some legal precedents that have the corporate lawyers concerned or that the whole thing is a sham and insurance and legal reasons are used to cover up personal anti-gun sentiment on the part of high level managers.

chasfm11 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Chasfm11, I have been in the commercial insurance business for 15 years. Not one time has the issue of concealed carry or weapons sign posting ever been mentioned by the underwriters. I've never seen it asked on an application. Nor have I ever had one require any type of posting or any anti gun rule be put in place. It simply has not come up or been an issue.

It is easy for companies and property owners to use their insurance company as justification for a policy they want to put in place when in fact the insurance company has nothing to do with it.

I'm glad to hear that the real answer is that there is no underwriting basis for anti-gun rules. That must mean that there are either some legal precedents that have the corporate lawyers concerned or that the whole thing is a sham and insurance and legal reasons are used to cover up personal anti-gun sentiment on the part of high level managers.

Similarly I'm told by insurance industry folks that many gun range rules are merely personal bias disguised as "insurance makes us"

A-R wrote: Similarly I'm told by insurance industry folks that many gun range rules are merely personal bias disguised as "insurance makes us"

That's when I start asking to talk to the insurance folks involved so that I can better understand their basis for concern. If asking such questions does nothing else, it may make those who try to use such excuses a little less likely to use them in the future.