TexasCHLforum.com

I understand some of the families in CO sued the theater for disarming their patron, posting no gun signs.

I have been told that the plaintiffs lost that suit.

What is the probability that of successfully suing a business that disarmed me and I was subsequently attacked/injured?

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just guessing. If you KNOW that you are not allowed to carry inside of a place, and you are made aware of that, then you have the choice not to go in...OR you choose to enter unarmed...it is your choice. The decision to enter and or remain is your choice. I guess that's how they might see it.

It would be quite a stretch in Texas, unless we pass a law expressly making commercial businesses liable under those circumstances.

Here's the general law in Texas. A person or entity is not liable for the unlawful acts of a third party over whom they had neither the right nor the ability to control. There are exceptions when the person or entity has notice of dangerous conditions that make it foreseeable that a customer would be injured or killed. The classic examples are stop-and-rob stores in high crime areas. Prior crimes at the store are very strong evidence that it was foreseeable that a customer or employee would be killed or injured, but the crimes need not be at that store. They can be in the area, but the frequency and severity of those crimes are also a factor. It's really a jury question.

As more crimes are committed in so-called "gun free zones," it will be easier to argue the company is liable, but note I said "easier," not easy. Since any location can be the target of a hijacker, terrorist or mass-murderer, it would be hard to argue that any specific store should have known they would be a target. If the "gun free zone" was in a high crime area, then that helps, but it's still a steep him to climb in Texas.

If we cannot amend Texas law to add subsection (f) to TPC §30.06, then the next best thing is to provide for civil liability for businesses that post 30.06 signs. Note, I did not include §30.07 signs because 1) that would be unwarranted; and 2) it would make the bill impossible to pass instead of highly improbable.

Chas.

Proposed new TPC §30.06(f) wrote: It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is a commercial business open to the public, or that the licensee would otherwise be considered an invitee on the property.

I hadn't heard of that suit, but another suit that made the news is the one in which the family of one of the Colorado shooting victims attempted to sue the gun manufacturers who made the guns that the shooter used. That suit was lost or dismissed (I don't remember which), and the plaintiffs were required to pay the defendants' court costs—which were considerable. At the urging of a rabidly anti-gun advocacy group, the family filed the suit, although federal law clearly protects manufacturers from such suits. When the case was lost and plaintiffs were saddled with the court costs, the advocacy group took a fade and refused to share the cost.

Just one more example of the total lack of honor among gun-grabbers. They are not only happy to sell the rest of us down the river, they are happy to sell one another down the river.