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

[OneGun]

Texas businesses that ban guns should be liable if unarmed patrons are hurt, Dallas senator says
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... r-says.ece

AUSTIN — Texas businesses that ask customers to disarm themselves will have to pay for injuries incurred in these gun-free zones if state Sen. Bob Hall has his way.

Hall, R-Edgewood, wants to propose a law that will make gun-free businesses liable for "any harm that befalls patrons as a result of being deprived of his or her weapon." The law, Hall says, would "encourage Texas businesses to do the right thing and allow their patrons to carry the firearms they have lawfully trained with for self-protection."
more at http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... r-says.ece

I think it's Patterned after the Tennessee law
Tennessee Businesses That Disarm Concealed Carry Permit Holders Now Liable for Their Safety
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ir-safety/
New law addresses liability for gun free businesses http://www.kxxv.com/story/32351422/new- ... o-lawsuits

The problem with this law is that if you choose to go into a business that makes you disarm, then you assume all of the risks, etc. of your decision. You had the choice to not enter the business. If people took responsibility for their own actions instead of looking for someone to blame, we would not live in a strange world of "Safe Spaces" and people wanting to repeal the 1st Amendment because they saw a poster that said "TRUMP 2016".

[NotRPB]

Assuming a risk VS. shopping elsewhere ...
Good argument when it applies:

When there is only 1 hospital (business) in town, there is not much of a choice whether to assume the risk or go elsewhere, but then Hospitals with 30.06 / 30.07 signs must be safe, it's not like they have pharmacies or drugs or anything a criminal would want and even though there are no signs advising criminals to not carry there, criminals will obey signs not addressed to them, but directed to law abiding license holders who can't carry there too right?

(Same with small towns, some have only 1 grocery store/movie theater/etc of whatever type, choice is a luxury people in Houston/San Antonio/Dallas etc have, but most of the surface area of this State is not large cities with abundance of choices.)

[Abraham]

OneGun,

I'm one to 'not do business' with 30.06 businesses where I have a choice. If there are other businesses that supply what I want or need and don't post 30.06, I'll go there even if I'm inconvenienced by going out of my way to get there.

But, what if there's no choice, i.e., doctors visit where there's no other doctor to go to, or hospital, or other places where there's no choice and no avoiding having to go there?

Should they get a pass if I have to disarm to go there and by disarmed some thug comes in and shoots me or I get injured some other way while said thug/thugs commit a violent crime that I maybe could've prevented if I'd been allowed to be armed?

[Lynyrd]

The problem with this law is that if you choose to go into a business that makes you disarm, then you assume all of the risks, etc. of your decision. You had the choice to not enter the business. If people took responsibility for their own actions instead of looking for someone to blame, we would not live in a strange world of "Safe Spaces" and people wanting to repeal the 1st Amendment because they saw a poster that said "TRUMP 2016".

I'm not sure the "you assume all the risks, etc. of your decision" holds water. Certainly not in a civil suit. There have been many, many businesses sued because someone got hurt while on the premises of a business. Slips and falls, negligence that caused injuries, etc., etc. As a property owner, I carry an umbrella policy to protect me against lawsuits if someone suffers an injury while on my property and decides to sue. Employers are responsible for providing a safe work environment or they open themselves up to potential litigation due to injuries.

IANAL but it seems to me that currently a person injured by a shooter during a robbery would only be able to sue the gunman. The action of posting 30.06/30.07 signs makes a place of business less safe. It is a conscious decision by the property owner, much like not putting up handrails. The reason that sounds so odd is that many in society have not yet realized that having a gun is a safety measure.

[jkurtz]

It is refreshing to see common sense come out. Just yesterday my wife told me that she had to disarm prior to going into the Hulen Mall (...our teenage daughter just "had" to get her school stuff there...).
She said that the entire time her Glock was in the car, she felt like a sitting duck.

Since when has the Hulen Mall been posted? I live right next to it and have never seen anything other than a gun buster sign.

[Jusme]

It is refreshing to see common sense come out. Just yesterday my wife told me that she had to disarm prior to going into the Hulen Mall (...our teenage daughter just "had" to get her school stuff there...).
She said that the entire time her Glock was in the car, she felt like a sitting duck.

Since when has the Hulen Mall been posted? I live right next to it and have never seen anything other than a gun buster sign.

I knew that Ridgmar was posted, but as of 3 months ago Hulen was not. Please update if this is true, That will be one more reason not to go to the mall.

[parabelum]

It is refreshing to see common sense come out. Just yesterday my wife told me that she had to disarm prior to going into the Hulen Mall (...our teenage daughter just "had" to get her school stuff there...).
She said that the entire time her Glock was in the car, she felt like a sitting duck.

Since when has the Hulen Mall been posted? I live right next to it and have never seen anything other than a gun buster sign.

It was Ridgmar Mall and NOT Hulen Mall (I'm such a great listener ).... All I heard was dot dot Mall and I spaced out

So, yes, Ridgmar Mall has 06 and 07 signs.

My mistake on Hulen Mall.

[Soccerdad1995]

Luckily for us, technology is killing off retailers anyway as more and more goods are available via the internet. Perishable groceries (especially in the more rural areas) are one of the last bastions of brick and mortar retail.

For those with no choice, I guess the only legal and safe alternative is to group together with a spouse or a friend and have them take up a defensive position outside the building with an AR, ready to rush in at a moments notice.

[Jusme]

Luckily for us, technology is killing off retailers anyway as more and more goods are available via the internet. Perishable groceries (especially in the more rural areas) are one of the last bastions of brick and mortar retail.

For those with no choice, I guess the only legal and safe alternative is to group together with a spouse or a friend and have them take up a defensive position outside the building with an AR, ready to rush in at a moments notice.

It's funny that you should say that, I told my wife I would drive her to a place, she wanted to go, that was posted, I would wait outside the door with my shotgun, but I wouldn't go in. She decided to go with her sister.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Texas businesses that ban guns should be liable if unarmed patrons are hurt, Dallas senator says
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... r-says.ece

AUSTIN — Texas businesses that ask customers to disarm themselves will have to pay for injuries incurred in these gun-free zones if state Sen. Bob Hall has his way.

Hall, R-Edgewood, wants to propose a law that will make gun-free businesses liable for "any harm that befalls patrons as a result of being deprived of his or her weapon." The law, Hall says, would "encourage Texas businesses to do the right thing and allow their patrons to carry the firearms they have lawfully trained with for self-protection."
more at http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... r-says.ece

I think it's Patterned after the Tennessee law
Tennessee Businesses That Disarm Concealed Carry Permit Holders Now Liable for Their Safety
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ir-safety/
New law addresses liability for gun free businesses http://www.kxxv.com/story/32351422/new- ... o-lawsuits

The problem with this law is that if you choose to go into a business that makes you disarm, then you assume all of the risks, etc. of your decision. You had the choice to not enter the business. If people took responsibility for their own actions instead of looking for someone to blame, we would not live in a strange world of "Safe Spaces" and people wanting to repeal the 1st Amendment because they saw a poster that said "TRUMP 2016".

Assumption of the risk as a legal doctrine has not existed in Texas in decades. It has been replaced by comparative negligence.

I agree with your overall concept, but I do not extend it to business property to the same extent as private property not used for commercial purposes. I have no problem with strict liability for businesses deny people the ability to protect themselves, but that will not pass in Texas.

Chas.

[twomillenium]

When you choose to go to do business with someone, it is your choice -- not the business's. SO be responsible for your own choosing and quit blame others because they are not wet nursing you. This goes both ways.

If my local xxxxxxxxxx business posts 3006, and there's not another such business in town, because the demand for xxxxxxxxxx won't support 2 such businesses, should I go without? Isn't my 2A right constitutionally protected?

No, you should not have to go without. Yes, you should follow the legal rules of the business establishment. See you still have a choice.
Since they are the only type of business in town, should you be allowed to make and follow your own set of rules that are contrary to the legal rules of that business? NO!
The decision is still yours to make. You can do business with someone because they allow something or they don't allow something (legally). Unless there is negligence involved the property owner should not have to worry about wet nursing the various public opinions. With or without signs, anything that happens negatively on the property will not be good.
Maybe all businesses should put up signs that say "Enter at Your Own Risk". But no matter what, at the end of the day, it is still your decision.

[mojo84]

But if he doesn't notice that you're carrying, then somehow later discovers that you are, there's no automatic penalty, unless you refuse to depart.

Is this the case now? If someone finds out later that one violated the effective notice of a sign, the person can still be charged? What about if the notice was a verbal notice?

[TreyHouston]

Here is an add on to that, last year, in Texas there were 0 (zero) tickets written for a 30.06 violation. But i do enjoy ya'll talking about "taking a ride" and lawer fees, etc...

[Charles L. Cotton]

Stop the discussion of intentionally violating TPC §30.06. It violates Rule 4.

Also, the topic is strict liability for certain businesses. Don't hijack the thread, start your own.

Chas.

[mojo84]

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.