HB 516 - No liability if you DO NOT post 30.06/7 signs your property

[Papa_Tiger]

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB516

Identical to 85-R HB 606 as referred from Committee last year which died in Calendars Committee.

[Maxwell]

I'm confused? Liability for what?

[philip964]

Finally!!

If you do not post and some one comes in and shoots up the place your not liable for their actions.

If you post then you have liability. Does not say it, but that would be the result.

Love it.

[Odiferous]

I don't think that's what this one does.

Sec. 95A.002. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO ALLOW HANDGUNS. There is no cause of action against an owner, lessee, or manager of property based on the owner's, lessee's, or manager's decision not to exercise the option to forbid the carrying of handguns by a license holder on the property by providing notice under Sections 30.06 and 30.07, Penal Code.

I read this as trying to prevent suing a property owner for not having posted.

[Papa_Tiger]

I don't think that's what this one does.

Sec. 95A.002. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO ALLOW HANDGUNS. There is no cause of action against an owner, lessee, or manager of property based on the owner's, lessee's, or manager's decision not to exercise the option to forbid the carrying of handguns by a license holder on the property by providing notice under Sections 30.06 and 30.07, Penal Code.

I read this as trying to prevent suing a property owner for not having posted.

Correct. If the owner/manager/lessee of a property chooses not to post 30.06/7 signs, a person who is negatively impacted by a handgun on that property cannot sue the owner/lessee/manager BECAUSE they didn't post the signs. The lack of logic being addressed here is the thinking that, "you knew handguns are dangerous and didn't prevent them and I got hurt, so you owe me for allowing something dangerous on your property without thinking of MY safety."

[PBratton]

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?

[philip964]

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.

[Papa_Tiger]

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.

[Maxwell]

WAIT A MINUTE! We (meaning LTC and responsible gun owners) aren't the issue! We're not going to be the ones "shooting the place up" so whay is there a liability issue?

IF as an LTC I have to disarm to do business I expect THAT business to provide me with reasonable security from the people that don't give a .... about signs. It's not a "you could have gone elsewhere" issue.

This bill is poorly worded, or am I missing something?

[philip964]

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.

I would agree with you, unless your a “public accommodation”. Most open to the public businesses fall under this definition.

[PBratton]

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.
[/quote

Yes, but the same holds true for those who were injured in an establishment that did not post... That's shows how badly our society has crumbled.

I'd like to see the day where punching someone in the face for being rude is acceptable again.

[Lynyrd]

It's possible that the wording of this is targeted towards insurance companies who want to raise premiums for umbrella coverage if you don't post 30.06/30.07. At the very least, it would take away the argument from a business owner that their insurance company demanded it.

[jordanmills]

It's possible that the wording of this is targeted towards insurance companies who want to raise premiums for umbrella coverage if you don't post 30.06/30.07. At the very least, it would take away the argument from a business owner that their insurance company demanded it.

I have yet to see any actual case of that. I hear people say it's a thing pretty often, but nobody ever documents it. I'm pretty sure it's always "my friend with a business said"...

This is a step in the right direction, but we really need strict liability for giving notice.

[C-dub]

That does seem to be the case when it comes to gun shows posting. What if this is a way of circumventing that?

[jordanmills]

That does seem to be the case when it comes to gun shows posting. What if this is a way of circumventing that?

Large fines for anyone giving notice or attempting to give notice for government-owned or -leased property.