TexasCHLforum.com

This was recently introduced. It would allow a victim to sue if he/she was injured because they could not defend themselves in "gun-free" places.

It will be interesting to see how far this goes.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/po ... 8190%27%5D

Signs would start dropping here after the first law suit if we had that in Texas. We need to get the people that where robbed at the sugarland store to file one because of the posted signs.

My problem with this is it's yet another attempt by government to regulate, and we all know how well that works! I mean, who needs it?

AFAIK we are free to sue anyone about anything at any time already. If I am attacked in public, whereever that might be (store, parking lot, you-name-it) I am gonna go after the owner, and if they have "no guns" signs that's all to the better.

P.S. Nuts you're right. Any lawyer who takes-up the case oughta be smart enough to use the "posted sign" thing I would hope, assuming the victim(s) have a CHL (I don't know what incident you're referring to)...

TomsTXCHL wrote:My problem with this is it's yet another attempt by government to regulate, and we all know how well that works! I mean, who needs it?

AFAIK we are free to sue anyone about anything at any time already. If I am attacked in public, whereever that might be (store, parking lot, you-name-it) I am gonna go after the owner, and if they have "no guns" signs that's all to the better.

AFAIK you can not sue anyone about anything.

This bill actually amends a previous law that limits the liability of persons posting the signs. http://www.tn.gov/sos/acts/108/pub/pc0016.pdf

Here is the proposed bill http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/SB1736.pdf

After further reading, it appears that the original law is Tennessee's version of "The Parking Lot" law so it would only apply to those signs.

If those signs offer all the protection and warm feelings that politicians say they offer....then business owners never have to worry about facing a lawsuit because all the criminals will follow the law and not bring a weapon on those properties to commit a crime..right?....right?

I'll end my sarcasm there lol.

Premises owners/lessees have a duty to keep business invitees from being injured, to discover and correct dangerous conditions. In some states, that duty may extend even to trespassers now. These are terms of art in law.

The customers at the Sugarland kidnapping and robbery will assert claims against the business, if experience is any guide.

The question will be whether business invitees as a group are safer carrying guns or not carrying guns. Those of us who carry believe one way, but there are substantial numbers who believe the other way. If gun carriers manage to avoid hurting others when they shoot at perps, it may eventually be accepted. If not, the argument will be lost.

What about perps wounded by carrying customers? Might a business be liable for the perp's injuries if injured by a customer carrying?

Laws like this are needed in order to give a legal downside to posting in order to counteract the established (and largely vacuous) downside of not posting.

Let's hope it passes there and quickly spreads to other states.

But why is a law even needed to allow such lawsuits? I thought that the mantra was anyone can sue for any reason, but perhaps such a law would increase the odds of winning.

As I see it, an establishment should face the least liability when they defer to their state's gun laws.

Don't know if I could get on board with that or not.

I am a staunch supporter of property rights and as much as I dislike gun free zones...it should remain the choice of the property owner.

We already live in such litigious times...I have to wonder if more laws are really necessary....where simply talking to the owner might be the better avenue.

flintknapper wrote:I am a staunch supporter of property rights and as much as I dislike gun free zones...it should remain the choice of the property owner.

And we are the owners of our bodies, health, and lives, and when rights conflict, the most important should prevail.

flintknapper wrote:
I am a staunch supporter of property rights and as much as I dislike gun free zones...it should remain the choice of the property owner.

"And we are the owners of our bodies, health, and lives, and when rights conflict, the most important should prevail."

I could probably be persuaded to agree with this, but for one thing.

While we DO have a "right" to self defense, you do NOT have a "right" (or requirement) to do business with any particular establishment, nor do they have to serve you (with a few exceptions).

So... there exists no conflicting or competing 'rights' that I see.

I support this 100%. Here is how I see it.

A property owner has an obligation to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of people they invite onto their property. If a business decides to create an unsafe environment within their store, they should have the obligation to take reasonable measures to mitigate that risk and ensure the safety of their customers.

This is no different than a grocery store that hosts a water balloon fight in their store (creates an unsafe situation), and then fails to have anyone mop up the water from the tile floors. If a business creates a Free Fire Zone in their store, a customer should reasonably expect that the business has taken full responsibility to mitigate the danger to their customers.

The problem one will have with recovering on a lawsuit like this is proving that the injuries claimed would have been avoided if one had been armed.

Also, a violent crime is a independent intervening event that breaks the chain of causation which is essential to liability. IOW, you can't show, legally, that the injuries were caused by the business operator.

The store owner would not be creating the dangerous condition. The criminal would be the one doing that.

hovercat wrote:The store owner would not be creating the dangerous condition. The criminal would be the one doing that.

I disagree. Using my analogy, that is like saying the water created the dangerous situation as opposed to the store owner who held the water balloon fight.

The store owner advertised to criminals that they would find easy targets in his store, he then compelled the people in his store to give up their ability to defend themselves. These actions created the dangerous situation.

To use another analogy, if I know that my dog is aggressive toward unknown children, and I invite 10 kids to my son's birthday party at my house, I should be responsible for securing my animal and should be liable if he gets loose and bites one of the kids. Yes, the kids parents might know I have a dog, and they decided to let their kid come to the party, but I still have responsibility to take reasonable measures to ensure everyone's safety.

hovercat wrote:The store owner would not be creating the dangerous condition. The criminal would be the one doing that.

IANAL, but IIRC there is a legal principal that covers "reasonable foreseeable risk." I believe a reasonable person could be easily convinced that a store owner who created a gun free zone was striping someone of the ability to protect themselves.