Texas businesses that ban guns should be liable if unarmed patrons are hurt, Dallas senator says

[TexasTornado]

I'm one of the last ones that would promote intentionally violating a business owner's right to restrict conduct on their private property and was not doing such. I also do not believe a business owner should be subjected to additional liability just for exercising his right to control the terms of admittance to his property.

There are very few places a person MUST go. If one doesn't like the terms of admittance one should find an alternative and not expect the property owner to assume responsibility for the patron's safety unless it involves negligence on the part of the business owner. We are not entitled to buy groceries in the town we live. What if the only grocery store closed?

Making the business owner liable is not the answer. The answer is to convince the business owner restricting law abiding citizens the right to carry in their building is a bad idea.

I respectfully disagree. Consider the issue from the role of an employee vs that of a customer. When I go to work, am I not entitled to a safe working environment? If policy (or signage in the case of my employer) prevents me from taking my safety into my own hands, they should be held liable if they do not supply adequate measures to ensure my safety due to their decision. While yes, I could seek employment elsewhere, an expectation of a safe work environment should be implicit at any company.

[TreyHouston]

What if buisnesses started expressing their customs, say they make me take my shoes off when i enter. Then comes in Mr. "I Don't Listen" and starts stomping on peoples feet with boots on, thus breaking my foot. Could I then sue the buisness owner?

[TreyHouston]

It seems the law in Tennessee and anything styled similar would be an open invitation for insurance companies to assert ideological and fiscal pressure over the gun control issue. I could be wrong but insurance companies know how to swing their sickle both ways when it comes to making and keeping money. Businesses assessed higher rates for "having" to allow gun carriers and those who would continue exclusion may face a likely increased liability of doing so.
Thoughts?

But they do not claim to be doing this... And they do not claim to be endorsing 3006 and 3007 signs or recommending them to stores. Charles and other lawyers have an eye out just waiting to pounce!

[G.A. Heath]

I need to cover this in a podcast but here's the key arguments I see against it:

1. What about businesses that are required by statute or regulation to prohibit firearms? Are they exempt from the added liability (fair to them because they have no choice) or are they also required to assume it as well (fair to the businesses that are not required to prohibit it).
2. What about property rights?
3. What about the risk of a negligent discharge, are they protected from that liability?
4. What about the risk of an armed customer injuring a bystander while legally defending themselves, is the business exempted from that liability?

[MeMelYup]

I need to cover this in a podcast but here's the key arguments I see against it:

1. What about businesses that are required by statute or regulation to prohibit firearms? Are they exempt from the added liability (fair to them because they have no choice) or are they also required to assume it as well (fair to the businesses that are not required to prohibit it).
2. What about property rights?
3. What about the risk of a negligent discharge, are they protected from that liability?
4. What about the risk of an armed customer injuring a bystander while legally defending themselves, is the business exempted from that liability?

If so, how are they exempt?

[Ruark]

I tend to consider the concept of reasonableness, as the law often does. Is expecting a business (say, a restaurant) to provide protection a reasonable expectation? Is it reasonable to expect a restaurant to provide armed personnel who can intervene if a customer suddenly jumps up and starts spraying people? What about the 5, 10, 20 people he kills before the restaurant's resident Rambo can shoot him? Would there be liability for those deaths? Will the law apply to all businesses? A 100,000 sq. ft. big box? McDonald's? Convenience stores? The shoe shop? The little gift shop with a little old lady working inside that gets 2 customers a day? What if 5 guys crash in with guns, not just one? Is the corner store going to have a whole SWAT team sitting there 24/7 waiting to leap into action?

I suspect a court would find it unreasonable to expect a business to provide this kind of protection, with there subsequently being no "negligence" on which to base civil liability, and that's notwithstanding the fact that the customer makes a conscious choice to enter the business in the first place. I know they passed that law in Tennessee, but right now it's just words on paper; I have grave doubts that it could stand up to a strong legal test, if and when that happens.

Just my 'pinion.

[v7a]

I know they passed that law in Tennessee

The bill in Tennessee was gutted & amended before it was passed. Here's the language that actually passed:

(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39- 17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person’s, business’s, or other entity’s failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359.

(b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

In other words, the bill protects businesses from liability for NOT banning guns. It doesn't impose liability on businesses that ban guns.

[mojo84]

V7a, interesting post. It seems to be very different from how many are portraying the law. Is there more to it that may impose liability as,many seem to think or did you post the entire law?

Thanks for posting it.

[v7a]

It seems to be very different from how many are portraying the law.

Many people just assumed that the original bill was never changed before it passed. Here's the bill history and the amendment.

I suspect the bill was amended because someone concluded that the original language would not have survived a court challenge.

[Ruark]

V7a, interesting post. It seems to be very different from how many are portraying the law. Is there more to it that may impose liability as,many seem to think or did you post the entire law?

Thanks for posting it.

The original code says there can be liability if they post a sign and a patron is injured. The amendment is saying that can't be liable if they DON'T post a sign. Does the amendment completely replace the original text, or just add to it?

[treadlightly]

We're in San Antonio this weekend, and it's surprising to see security guards in a lot of places. Thankfully, none of them were posted 30.06. I saw a couple of restaurants posted 30.07, both had security guards, also the shoe store my wife wanted to visit had a guard on duty.

[Abraham]

Back to square one.

Avoid businesses that are 30.06 posted. Do business with those that do not post 30.06. Easy.

However, there's a caveat: There are places that ban LTC's you must do business with at times, such as hospitals, most doctor's offices, the post office, etc. At these locations you've no choice regarding being armed unless you can forego medical treatment (unlikely) or visiting a loved in or post office needs, etc.

Suck it up and understand there will 'always' be places that demand you be unarmed.