This is an interesting take on GFZ

[Antares]

This is sort of an interesting take on gun free zones, but I think it is just almost the opposite of holding gun manufacturers libel for gun violence when one of their guns is used. If it makes people realize what a mistake GFZ's are maybe it is a good thing.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-attacks/

[sugar land dave]

Interesting, but I don't think such a bill could ever pass in Texas. I think we will have to change attitudes not laws in the case of 30.06 signs. I wish it could be different.

[ferguson]

I want legislation to allow me to post signs that keeps guests from breathing on my property.

[KLB]

Legislation would be quicker, but it may not be necessary. Someday there will be a case in which a HL licensee leaves a firearm behind because of a 30.06 sign and is injured or killed by a non-HL shooter. The injured licensee or his survivors will argue it was negligent for the proprietor to post the sign without providing security equivalent to what the HL licensee could have provided himself had he been able to retain his weapon. The negligence question will probably be decided by a jury. I would love to hear jury deliberations in such a case.

[SA-TX]

Interesting, but I don't think such a bill could ever pass in Texas. I think we will have to change attitudes not laws in the case of 30.06 signs. I wish it could be different.

Change may come about from many directions. Originally the CHL law was contained in (paraphrasing) "Section 49ee of the ..." and later was moved to "Section 411 Government Code". When this happened, all of of the previously valid signs were (presumably) now invalid because they didn't contain wording identical to the new statutory language (I say presumably because I'm not aware of this theory ever being tested in court.) There may have even been other changes since '97 that I've forgotten about.

Don't overlook entropy! Once the hubub is forgotten and actual OC hasn't generated new negative feelings, signs might not get replaced when windows do or door glass does. Taped up signs may fall down and after redoing them a few times merchants may just say "forget this". Even businesses that have a corporate policy could be sloppy in the future & post non-binding signs or none at all.

On the change attitude side, yes, hopefully LTCs can help businesses understand we are good guys not bad ones. I recall that shortly after a beer and wine store opened in my old neighborhood, I noticed they had a 51% sign posted, a 30.06 sign, plus the "non-licensed firearms" (the only correct one). I guessed that they just threw everything into the window that TABC had provided and I was right. After respectfully pointing it out and noting "let me help you increase your sales", 51% and 30.06 came down. I've been a loyal customer ever since.

SA-TX

[JALLEN]

Land occupier rules require an occupier of land to protect business invitees, and even trespassers in some states, from dangerous conditions and require the land occupier to inspect and correct discoverable dangerous conditions. This is whst is behind the "clean up on aisle 3" calls. There is an entire industry centered around slip and fall injuries in retail stores.

There are some causation issues, because merely having a weapon will not prevent one from injury, as seen by the stories of armed folk who are injured or killed for their self defense efforts.

[AJSully421]

Liberalism / Statism has killed millions of people over the last 200 years. It is high time that those espousing liberal policies be held accountable, both financially and criminally, for their anti-gun craziness.

Install this law for any private place posting 30.06 and/of 30.07. Next, make county / city officials criminally liable under Official Oppression statutes for the posting any sort of "no gun" signs on government property. Repeal TX PC 46.03 (a)(1), and then make it so that any Texas Peace Officer cannot enforce the federal GFSA.

We just might get those hippie liberals to move back to California.

[TomV]

It seems it would be impossible to prove.

As the article states: The injured party would have to show they were injured because they were not carrying in the GFZ where if it were not a GFZ the injured party would have been carrying a weapon and most probably would have not been injured due to the carrying of said weapon.

Too many what-ifs for my taste.

[RossA]

As a lawyer, this looks pretty straightforward. The story says that three things must be proven to win a case under the proposed law:


the plaintiff had to be authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident
the plaintiff was prohibited from carrying a firearm because of the gun-free sign
the property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law but was posted by choice of the defendant

I don't see anything that says that the plaintiff has to prove that he could have outshot the bad guy, or that he was a faster draw than the bad guy, etc.
Those three things would take about 5 minutes to prove in front of a jury.

[mr1337]

Looks like we have 2 threads on the same topic: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1045299

[Ruark]

I don't see how any such case could be constructed. So prior to CHLs being allowed, businesses were responsible for providing armed security, and could be sued if they didn't and a customer was hurt in a robbery? I don't recall any such cases.

There's a fourth item on that list: the fact that nobody forces the customer to enter a business with an 06 sign. He knows the risk before he CHOOSES to enter or not enter. It's like seeing a big sign saying "CAUTION: WET FLOOR!" then you walk past it and slip and fall.

[RossA]

Before CHL's were allowed, no one had a choice. Store owners could not choose whether to allow handguns or not, because citizens could not legally carry them. Now store owners do have a choice and the choice they make should reflect in the potential liability which they bear.