TexasCHLforum.com

Is anybody aware of any case law dealing with criminal attacks in places that provide effective notice of criminal trespass with CHL? It would seem that somebody would have already tested the waters regarding injury sustained because a business deprived individuals of a publicly available remedy- the means of self defense and neglected to provide an adequate substitute=effective security? So far, the only information available is the insistence of Internet Experts that no such case has been Won, the implication that no such case has ever even been filed and therefore never will be.

With Fundraiser /Activists harassing corporations to forbid licensed carry, it might be advisable to photographically document the presence of 30:06 signs immediately after a high profile shooting event to establish that the signs were present when the event took place- in case the concern removes the signs later to avoid potential liability or unwanted media coverage.

Eveett Walker wrote:Is anybody aware of any case law dealing with criminal attacks in places that provide effective notice of criminal trespass with CHL? It would seem that somebody would have already tested the waters regarding injury sustained because a business deprived individuals of a publicly available remedy- the means of self defense and neglected to provide an adequate substitute=effective security? So far, the only information available is the insistence of Internet Experts that no such case has been Won, the implication that no such case has ever even been filed and therefore never will be.

With Fundraiser /Activists harassing corporations to forbid licensed carry, it might be advisable to photographically document the presence of 30:06 signs immediately after a high profile shooting event to establish that the signs were present when the event took place- in case the concern removes the signs later to avoid potential liability or unwanted media coverage.

Certainly an interesting first post. You may be in the wrong forum.

I didn't see a forum that looked more appropriate. If it's the wrong forum, delete it, of course.

My bad. I misread it the first time. Teach me to try and multitask, I guess.

I'm sure that the current method (suing the everloving crap out of them for insufficient security) is going to continue to be the norm. They have a right to post and we aren't forced to enter the business, so I don't think that a 30.06 posting is ever going to be used as a "gotcha!" moment for a court case.

Ok. so there have been related suits pointed toward Inadequate Security. That makes sense and explains why an activist attorney I know couldn't find any reference to PC 30:06 in WestlawNext. Still, it might be useful to document the presence of such signs at the time high profile events take place. Corporations hate negative press almost as much as lawsuits.

Taypo wrote:I'm sure that the current method (suing the everloving crap out of them for insufficient security) is going to continue to be the norm. They have a right to post and we aren't forced to enter the business, so I don't think that a 30.06 posting is ever going to be used as a "gotcha!" moment for a court case.

I agree. You'd almost have to prove that the business knew that by posting the sign they would expose their customers to increased liability. The problem with the argument of negligence is that — as illogical as it seems — businesses actually believe that they are making things safer for everyone by banning your gun. In other words, they believe that admitting your gun to their premises would make things more dangerous. So they are taking a "positive" action in the name of "safety"......and I think you'd have a very hard time proving negligence in that light. For you to prevail, they would have to post a 2nd sign next to the 30.06 sign, reading:

2nd Sign wrote:As you can see from the other sign, we have forced all of our customers to disarm before entering.....at least....we have forced all people carrying a handgun legally to disarm. So if you are a criminal, come on in and bring your gun with you. It's easy pickin's up in here.

The combination of those two signs might give you a chance in court......but not the 30.06 sign by itself. However, keep in mind that, come January 1st, if they post a 30.06 sign, you can just uncover your gun and open carry.

Eveett Walker wrote:Ok. so there have been related suits pointed toward Inadequate Security. That makes sense and explains why an activist attorney I know couldn't find any reference to PC 30:06 in WestlawNext. Still, it might be useful to document the presence of such signs at the time high profile events take place. Corporations hate negative press almost as much as lawsuits.

I don't disagree with the principal, but I'm not a lawyer either.

All of the recent incidents have happened in GFZ's and aside from people like us, I don't see a whole lot of talk about attacking 30.06ish local laws. If anything, its leading to gun control talk rather than a loosening of the restrictions.

Eveett Walker wrote:Is anybody aware of any case law dealing with criminal attacks in places that provide effective notice of criminal trespass with CHL? It would seem that somebody would have already tested the waters regarding injury sustained because a business deprived individuals of a publicly available remedy- the means of self defense and neglected to provide an adequate substitute=effective security? So far, the only information available is the insistence of Internet Experts that no such case has been Won, the implication that no such case has ever even been filed and therefore never will be.

With Fundraiser /Activists harassing corporations to forbid licensed carry, it might be advisable to photographically document the presence of 30:06 signs immediately after a high profile shooting event to establish that the signs were present when the event took place- in case the concern removes the signs later to avoid potential liability or unwanted media coverage.

I don't see how anyone could sue and win. If someone makes a choice to enter the establishment knowing full well they weren't allowed to carry, I don't see them wining a lawsuit. People have choices on where they do business, don't like the ban shop somewhere where you can protect yourself. It's pretty simple. Disarm and you take a chance but I don't think the shop owner assumes liability for someone who knows the law and enters anyway.

I'd almost suggest a legislative effort along these lines:


Mississippi: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01/14/ ... lity-94257


Missouri: http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog ... r-premises


Arizona: http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm


Texas: ?

juno106 wrote:I'd almost suggest a legislative effort along these lines:


Mississippi: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01/14/ ... lity-94257


Missouri: http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog ... r-premises


Arizona: http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm


Texas: ?

If the age of these efforts is any indication, I'd guess they didn't gain much traction.

I think the reason suits against businesses for having 30.06/30.7 signs (or similar in other states) fail, and will continue to fail, is that despite the huge advance in recognition of 2A rights across the nation being able to defend yourself and carry a firearm is still not seen as a regular, everyday part of being an adult. A lot of people intellectually have come around that the notion that you should be able to do this, and it's great if you can, but don't actually believe it is a necessary part of their lives.

So when if someone gets hurt at a business for banning legal firearm carry and sues, most people, and at least most juries and probably judges, would see it as like trying to sue an airline for not letting you wear your own parachute and ending up in a crash. The fact that you're much more likely to get robbed/shot at your local gas station convenience store than die in an airliner crash wouldn't even come into play -- it's the cultural perception. So the movie theater in Aurora gets sued for not having security like many of the other places that were showing that Batman movie, but no one besides the relatively small community of people who actively think about self-defense (and act on that thinking) would even consider that banning legal carry could be a liability factor. I'll bet you can't find too many tort lawyers who would. This may change over time, but right now...no.

Mississippi = 2014
Missouri = 2013

Arizona is older, true, but at least they made the attempt. That is more than can be said for Texas as 2015.

Taypo wrote:If the age of these efforts is any indication, I'd guess they didn't gain much traction.

I'm with TAM. If you knowingly enter a business that posts effective notice, you have waived your right to sue for liability. All the defense attorney has to do is ask you on the stand, Did you see the sign? Yes. Did you then disarm? Yes, I was required to be law. Did you then enter the business knowing that were not armed? Yes, but I....case dismissed.

You'd have a better chance of suing a place that was a GFZ but was not posted (think schools, etc.), but then you're suing the government, and good luck winning that one.