TexasCHLforum.com

I like this idea!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -shooting/

I do too! This bears following! Thanks for posting!

Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

Beiruty wrote:Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

You can sue if there is not enough security measures and if they deny you the right for self defense. It is a theory and I am not sure why such case is not in courts yet.

Beiruty wrote:Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

Sure, right now... but if the law changes, and now says that you are liable if you post signs... then you are liable if you post signs.

Liability insurance rates would go up for any location that posted signs, because it would result in greater potential risk of loss to the insurance company... so signs would come down at all but the most venomously anti-gun places.

Wasn't there some similar initiatives here in TX, or possibly another state. I seem to remember reading that there was some talk about lawful CHL/CCW possessors being allowed to sue if injured/killed in a voluntary Gun Free zone? I think it was pooh poo'd because your presence there is "optional" and ultimately you can't hold a company responsible for actions you took voluntarily (e.g. disarming and entering a private establishment).

I like the concept though.

AJSully421 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

Sure, right now... but if the law changes, and now says that you are liable if you post signs... then you are liable if you post signs.

Liability insurance rates would go up for any location that posted signs, because it would result in greater potential risk of loss to the insurance company... so signs would come down at all but the most venomously anti-gun places.

It becomes a slippery slope due to the fact that the left wants to do the same thing to gun manufacturers. The only way I could see something like this working were if it was a location that a person must enter by law, but those would usually be government facilities. If a person has a choice not to enter a posted business, then it would be hard to hold them liable for someone else's actions. So far I have not run across a 30.06 posted business, that I don't have another option as to where to take my business.
What I think would be a better option would be as a discrimination issue whereby someone with an LTC, was being discriminated against, just like a licensed beautician would not be allowed to carry scissors, or a chef not being able to carry their knife. Either of those things could be used as a defensive weapon and they would obviously be trained to use them, so why only licensed handgun carriers?JMHO

Jusme wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

Sure, right now... but if the law changes, and now says that you are liable if you post signs... then you are liable if you post signs.

Liability insurance rates would go up for any location that posted signs, because it would result in greater potential risk of loss to the insurance company... so signs would come down at all but the most venomously anti-gun places.

It becomes a slippery slope due to the fact that the left wants to do the same thing to gun manufacturers. The only way I could see something like this working were if it was a location that a person must enter by law, but those would usually be government facilities. If a person has a choice not to enter a posted business, then it would be hard to hold them liable for someone else's actions. So far I have not run across a 30.06 posted business, that I don't have another option as to where to take my business.
What I think would be a better option would be as a discrimination issue whereby someone with an LTC, was being discriminated against, just like a licensed beautician would not be allowed to carry scissors, or a chef not being able to carry their knife. Either of those things could be used as a defensive weapon and they would obviously be trained to use them, so why only licensed handgun carriers?JMHO

Good point. "Equality" is what got the LGBTBBQOMG group what they wanted. I am going to start screaming "discrimination" based on my exercising an established civil right.

Most of the comments already stated look at this from the perspective of a customer going into a place of business. What about employees who are working there and are forced to disarm before going to work? I would definitely support a push to make employers be penalized financially if their employees are hurt or wounded in workplace where they were not allowed to carry if they have an LTC. Of course, the lawyers will weigh in and find all kinds of problems with that, but if it passed insurance companies would certainly raise rates for businesses that post.

Jusme wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

Sure, right now... but if the law changes, and now says that you are liable if you post signs... then you are liable if you post signs.

Liability insurance rates would go up for any location that posted signs, because it would result in greater potential risk of loss to the insurance company... so signs would come down at all but the most venomously anti-gun places.

It becomes a slippery slope due to the fact that the left wants to do the same thing to gun manufacturers. The only way I could see something like this working were if it was a location that a person must enter by law, but those would usually be government facilities. If a person has a choice not to enter a posted business, then it would be hard to hold them liable for someone else's actions. So far I have not run across a 30.06 posted business, that I don't have another option as to where to take my business.
What I think would be a better option would be as a discrimination issue whereby someone with an LTC, was being discriminated against, just like a licensed beautician would not be allowed to carry scissors, or a chef not being able to carry their knife. Either of those things could be used as a defensive weapon and they would obviously be trained to use them, so why only licensed handgun carriers?JMHO

One has a choice.

My understanding is that the bill listed below is a done deal in Tennessee and becomes law at the end of the month:
http://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/tennes ... usinesses/

Beiruty wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Would not fly as the business is not liable for 3rd parties destructive acts.

You can sue if there is not enough security measures and if they deny you the right for self defense. It is a theory and I am not sure why such case is not in courts yet.

If we were to pursue this then at least we would put the anti-gunners on the defensive; make them spend their time and money defending instead of constantly attacking, just a thought.

AJSully421 wrote:

Jusme wrote:It becomes a slippery slope due to the fact that the left wants to do the same thing to gun manufacturers. The only way I could see something like this working were if it was a location that a person must enter by law, but those would usually be government facilities. If a person has a choice not to enter a posted business, then it would be hard to hold them liable for someone else's actions. So far I have not run across a 30.06 posted business, that I don't have another option as to where to take my business.
What I think would be a better option would be as a discrimination issue whereby someone with an LTC, was being discriminated against, just like a licensed beautician would not be allowed to carry scissors, or a chef not being able to carry their knife. Either of those things could be used as a defensive weapon and they would obviously be trained to use them, so why only licensed handgun carriers?JMHO

Good point. "Equality" is what got the LGBTBBQOMG group what they wanted. I am going to start screaming "discrimination" based on my exercising an established civil right.

But would that be considered discrimination? We did pass qualifications to have a CHL/LTC, but the law clearly states that IF they don't want us to carry they have to post 30.06/07 signs. I just want to know your idea of discrimination.

I have an idea, why not have stores take down all their gunbuster/invalid or valid 30.06/06 signs. To obtain one you have to apply to the state with proof of business insurance. This business insurance must have a certain amount of liability insurance to be approved before the sign is processed and mailed. The sign could have an expiration date just as our licenses do, as well as a fee. That way, there is no confusion as to if it's valid/invalid. And businesses rates are not increased/decreased. FYI I work for an insurance company

TresHuevos wrote:My understanding is that the bill listed below is a done deal in Tennessee and becomes law at the end of the month:
http://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/tennes ... usinesses/

None of those Tennessee bills that passed provide for damages if a person is injured in a gun free zone. Don't know the status of that bill yet.

vjallen75 wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

Jusme wrote:It becomes a slippery slope due to the fact that the left wants to do the same thing to gun manufacturers. The only way I could see something like this working were if it was a location that a person must enter by law, but those would usually be government facilities. If a person has a choice not to enter a posted business, then it would be hard to hold them liable for someone else's actions. So far I have not run across a 30.06 posted business, that I don't have another option as to where to take my business.
What I think would be a better option would be as a discrimination issue whereby someone with an LTC, was being discriminated against, just like a licensed beautician would not be allowed to carry scissors, or a chef not being able to carry their knife. Either of those things could be used as a defensive weapon and they would obviously be trained to use them, so why only licensed handgun carriers?JMHO

Good point. "Equality" is what got the LGBTBBQOMG group what they wanted. I am going to start screaming "discrimination" based on my exercising an established civil right.

But would that be considered discrimination? We did pass qualifications to have a CHL/LTC, but the law clearly states that IF they don't want us to carry they have to post 30.06/07 signs. I just want to know your idea of discrimination.

I have an idea, why not have stores take down all their gunbuster/invalid or valid 30.06/06 signs. To obtain one you have to apply to the state with proof of business insurance. This business insurance must have a certain amount of liability insurance to be approved before the sign is processed and mailed. The sign could have an expiration date just as our licenses do, as well as a fee. That way, there is no confusion as to if it's valid/invalid. And businesses rates are not increased/decreased. FYI I work for an insurance company

That's just it, they don't "have" to post signs to provide effective notice. It can be verbal, or written. It also leaves open the possibility for it to be arbitrary. Example: I walk in wearing a "Come and Take It" shirt, camo pants, and a 2A tactical cap, with my gun clearly visible in a skull and crossbones kydex holster, there is no signage so I haven't violated any laws yet. I'm met at the door by a security guard/manager who tells me " You can't bring your gun in here" I have been given effective notice. You come in right after I leave, and you are wearing a button down shirt, slacks and have your gun in a high and tight leather holster that matches you belt and shoes, the same guard/manager also knows you are carrying but you don't appear to be as scary looking so he doesn't say anything to you as you conduct your business. Discrimination? The only defining characteristic between us was the way we were dressed, but he uses the effective notice only on one of us. I don't know of that scenario occurring, but the possibility is there. JMHO