Houston: Mother Pistol-whipped and Robbed in IKEA Parking Lit

[anygunanywhere]

This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.

What makes you think one would be sucessful with such a suit?

Probably not, but it would at least it would draw attention that the business is putting their customers in harm's way.
I can understand a business putting up a 3007 sign, but a 3006 is a sore spot with me. I can look for another place to spend my money.

Same here. Some people are uncomfortable with firearms so I can understand a business putting up a 30.07 bulletin but 30.06 really? How can they get offended if they don't know?

IANAL, but I think the argument would be that by requiring customers to disarm, the store took away the means for the customer to prevent or minimize injury from a foreseeable risk. It would be a better case if the victim actually had an LTC, had left their gun in the car before being assaulted in the store / parking lot, and the store had a documented history of these types of crimes but did not hire sufficient security.

Basically, the store owners should be liable if they choose to do something that increases the likelihood of injury / death from a forseeable risk and then do nothing to mitigate that risk. Kind of like if I invite you into my home, and require you to remove your shoes if you want to stay, then have you follow me across the newly waxed kitchen floor. By taking away your shoes (with traction), I have increased the likelihood of you falling on my newly waxed floor (forseeable risk). Or if I tell your kid that he can't wear his protective helmet before getting on the trampoline in my back yard, and he proceeds to crack open his skull.

The key would be getting a jury to see that banning guns increases the customer's risk. A tall order, especially in a city like Houston where we have a lot of people believing that the presence of any guns always increases risk.

But...but....private property rights!

[Soccerdad1995]

VESP's. What's that? Someone forced this woman to shop at IKEA? Abraham is right.

VESP = Voluntary Emergency Service Personnel. One of many categories of folks that 30.06 signs do not apply to. This criminal was probably in another excluded class (non-LTC holders). The signs also don't apply to anyone who is carrying something other than a handgun. And in full disclosure, the sign at this particular business didn't apply to anyone because apparently it is non-compliant in the first place. I'm just saying that 30.06 signs are not a complete ban on the carrying of defensive weapons for a lot of folks. Yes that would hurt the legal argument if you were to file suit.

And I agree with you and Abraham that we should not give our business to store owners who care so little for our well being that they would intentionally put their customers at increased risk of injury / death by posting any type of sign that discourages self defense while encouraging criminal assaults.

[CZp10]

It's a good thing that 30.06 signs don't apply to VESP's.

Well, we don’t really know what a VESP is, the law is so vague. Also a VESP is not exempt nor can they say the sign does not apply. It does apply and you are not exempt, language like that would have to be spelled out in the law, you can still be arrested and charged. The law simply gives you a “defense to prosecution” that your lawyer can use. Most importantly it does not give you any actual immunity from the state or any civil litigation. HB435 is brand new and hasn’t been tested in court, so no one can say what it means. I just can’t believe we just accept that fact that states like California don’t allow no gun signs to carry the force of law but Texas does. If you pull out a gun in a 30.06 establishment, then claim VESP, don’t be surprised if the prosecutor goes after you anyway, and the store as well as any customers can sue you and point to the 30.06 sign as a reason. I would very much hope you prevail in court, but don’t assume it.

[Redneck_Buddha]

Don't shop at 30.06 posted businesses.

Interesting timing on this thread. Had a conversation with the manager at the new Sprouts on Eldorado in Frisco about their 30.06 and he was as smug as he could be about it. Basically said the same thing -- don't like it? Don't shop here.

[Soccerdad1995]

It's a good thing that 30.06 signs don't apply to VESP's.

Well, we don’t really know what a VESP is, the law is so vague. Also a VESP is not exempt nor can they say the sign does not apply. It does apply and you are not exempt, language like that would have to be spelled out in the law, you can still be arrested and charged. The law simply gives you a “defense to prosecution” that your lawyer can use. Most importantly it does not give you any actual immunity from the state or any civil litigation. HB435 is brand new and hasn’t been tested in court, so no one can say what it means. I just can’t believe we just accept that fact that states like California don’t allow no gun signs to carry the force of law but Texas does. If you pull out a gun in a 30.06 establishment, then claim VESP, don’t be surprised if the prosecutor goes after you anyway, and the store as well as any customers can sue you and point to the 30.06 sign as a reason. I would very much hope you prevail in court, but don’t assume it.

A lot to address in such a short post. I'll start with the last part. If anyone "pulls out a gun" without an immediate justification for the use of deadly force, or at a gun range, then that person should be taking a trip to the local PD regardless of whether there is any sign. Hopefully you weren't referencing actually drawing a weapon. While technically, not a 30.06 violation since the gun wouldn't be concealed, this is nevertheless a very bad idea and would run afoul of other laws. I'm actually not sure what you meant by that part since you say 30.06 and not 30.07. Did you really mean to refer to someone drawing their weapon?

Personally, I don't think the law on VESP's is vague. It very clearly says that a VESP has a defense to prosecution. Are you referring to the definition of a VESP as being vague? I agree that this could be seen as a bit vague since it references someone who "performs services for the public good" (going from memory here). How often do you need to have provided services, what exactly qualifies as a "service for the public good"? There definitely could be some questions here if the only "service" one ever performed was to make a $10 donation to the Red Cross. But I think you could see clear cut cases here. It does seem pretty clear that the law isn't referencing someone who is paid for performing such services (not to say that same person couldn't also volunteer in their spare time).

As far as exempt vs defense to prosecution, yes you do have a point there. I suppose one could be arrested, face a grand jury, and held without bail pending trial for a suspected 30.06 violation. That could happen whether one was exempt, or had a defense to prosecution, or even if there was no evidence of any crime at all. It could happen. But the likelihood of any type of a "ride" for an offense that carries a max $200 fine is so low as to be approaching non-existent. When the DA is considering whether it makes sense to mount a full prosecution including an extensive investigation to disapprove your claims of volunteer service acts, hopefully someone will remind him/her that they are prosecuting the equivalent of a speeding ticket, and they will realize they are being an idiot. In the extremely unlikely event that you are discovered to be carrying and you are confronted by LEO's, I would guess that you will either be asked to leave, as we saw recently in the Austin bakery incident, or a citation will be issued, which you will then decide whether to fight in court.

My whole point is that 30.06 signage applies to a very small segment of the population who might be carrying defensive weapons, and for that segment, it only applies to certain weapons (handguns). With the passage of recent legislation, the affected sub-segment has gotten even smaller.

[John Galt]

Don't shop at 30.06 posted businesses.

Interesting timing on this thread. Had a conversation with the manager at the new Sprouts on Eldorado in Frisco about their 30.06 and he was as smug as he could be about it. Basically said the same thing -- don't like it? Don't shop here.

I wrote Sprouts off years ago. I will not darken their door. Central Market is much better anyway.

[twomillenium]

This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.

All the business would have to do is show that even without the sign crime is committed. This is an example of how the courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits because someone thinks that one should behave the way that someone else merely desires.

[CZp10]

This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.

All the business would have to do is show that even without the sign crime is committed. This is an example of how the courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits because someone thinks that one should behave the way that someone else merely desires.

“All” they have to do? I am familiar with what companies have to do when they get sued. Enough litigation, win or lose, and they can be made to change policies. Basically it is just that I believe the ability of a business open to the public to universally rescind the 2A should be tested in court.

[CZp10]

My whole point is that 30.06 signage applies to a very small segment of the population who might be carrying defensive weapons, and for that segment, it only applies to certain weapons (handguns). With the passage of recent legislation, the affected sub-segment has gotten even smaller.

A 30.06 sign says the second amendment does not exist inside their location, and that affects everyone. You can argue who it might or might not apply to when it goes to court, but it is hard to say that it doesn't affect everyone.

The definition of VESP is completely vague, and anyone who uses it as a defense opens themselves up to having to prove they are actually a VESP, and it might not go your way. I wrote that if you pull your weapon out, for any reason whatsoever, be it completely justified or not, you can be seen as knowingly and willfully carrying past a 30.06 sign. You will say the sign doesn’t apply to you because you view yourself as a VESP, but not everyone will see it that way. You could pull your weapon for a justified reason, but that will not stop the store from suing you for violating their sign, it will also not stop any customers present from suing you. Call your attorney and tell them you plan to knowingly concealed carry past a 30.06 sign because you view yourself a VESP and see what they tell you.

My basic point is that there is literally nothing in the current laws that exempt or give immunity to VESP, HB435 gives one simple possible defense for you to use, nothing more. Everyone knows you will be sued, most likely by multiple people, if you ever have to justifiably use your weapon. If that happens in a 30.06 location, the opposing counsel will make a very big deal out of you knowingly violating a 30.06 sign. Again, I very much hope the self-proclaimed VESP prevails, but I want to make sure people understand the risks they are taking.

[twomillenium]

This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.

All the business would have to do is show that even without the sign crime is committed. This is an example of how the courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits because someone thinks that one should behave the way that someone else merely desires.

“All” they have to do? I am familiar with what companies have to do when they get sued. Enough litigation, win or lose, and they can be made to change policies. Basically it is just that I believe the ability of a business open to the public to universally rescind the 2A should be tested in court.

Whether I agree with the business or not, is not as important as the owner to be able to run the legal business as they legally decide. If you do not want to do business with them, go somewhere else. Don't force a business to be panty-waisted because a panty-waist demands it.

[TreyHouston]

My whole point is that 30.06 signage applies to a very small segment of the population who might be carrying defensive weapons, and for that segment, it only applies to certain weapons (handguns). With the passage of recent legislation, the affected sub-segment has gotten even smaller.

A 30.06 sign says the second amendment does not exist inside their location, and that affects everyone. You can argue who it might or might not apply to when it goes to court, but it is hard to say that it doesn't affect everyone.

The definition of VESP is completely vague, and anyone who uses it as a defense opens themselves up to having to prove they are actually a VESP, and it might not go your way. I wrote that if you pull your weapon out, for any reason whatsoever, be it completely justified or not, you can be seen as knowingly and willfully carrying past a 30.06 sign. You will say the sign doesn’t apply to you because you view yourself as a VESP, but not everyone will see it that way. You could pull your weapon for a justified reason, but that will not stop the store from suing you for violating their sign, it will also not stop any customers present from suing you. Call your attorney and tell them you plan to knowingly concealed carry past a 30.06 sign because you view yourself a VESP and see what they tell you.

My basic point is that there is literally nothing in the current laws that exempt or give immunity to VESP, HB435 gives one simple possible defense for you to use, nothing more. Everyone knows you will be sued, most likely by multiple people, if you ever have to justifiably use your weapon. If that happens in a 30.06 location, the opposing counsel will make a very big deal out of you knowingly violating a 30.06 sign. Again, I very much hope the self-proclaimed VESP prevails, but I want to make sure people understand the risks they are taking.

I am not aware if ANYONE getting sued for breaking a 3006 sign or a no shirt no service.
HB435 not tested in court? Has 30.06 or 30.07 been tested in court?
No, DA would get skinned alive for trial by jury for a $200 fine. Honestly, I would fight it without a lawyer and hire one if it actually made it to court.
However, one should always follow the law or challenge it if they think it is wrong.
Once again, I think there should be a "go fund me" for Mr. Cotton to give it a swing!

[CZp10]

Whether I agree with the business or not, is not as important as the owner to be able to run the legal business as they legally decide. If you do not want to do business with them, go somewhere else. Don't force a business to be panty-waisted because a panty-waist demands it.

Not sure how this is anything other than blatantly offensive.
Aside from your reluctance to stand up for the second amendment, not all of us are as scared as you to stand up for the constitution. I believe that the 30.06 would not stand the test in court, and therefore not be found legal.

America fighting for independence was not “legal” at the time, slavery was “legal” once, so according to your backward thinking, people should just go elsewhere?

[Captain Matt]

Everyone knows you will be sued, most likely by multiple people, if you ever have to justifiably use your weapon.

Then it should be easy as pie for you to cite a dozen or more self defense shooting lawsuits that went to trial in Texas where the defendant wasn't first convicted in a criminal trial, and wasn't a government employee.

[CZp10]

Everyone knows you will be sued, most likely by multiple people, if you ever have to justifiably use your weapon.

Then it should be easy as pie for you to cite a dozen or more self defense shooting lawsuits that went to trial in Texas where the defendant wasn't first convicted in a criminal trial, and wasn't a government employee.

I have been over this before, it is not “just” a $200 fine, it is criminal conviction on your permanent record that anyone will see when doing a background check. My only point is that it seems some think the VESP means you are exempt from 30.06, and that is untrue, exempt is completely different legal definition.

You have never heard of people being sued for self-defense? Not sure what to say, I guess you can start with my LTC instructor who gave us several he personally knew of. I have a relative that sees all the lawsuits brought against companies every day, it is truly ridiculous, everyone sues for everything. I am simply pointing out that there are risks to thinking HB435 gives you a free pass, but I get the feeling some here just want to argue angrily instead of having a productive conversation. If people want to think that 30.06 is meaningless to them, and that they won't get sued by anyone for using a gun in self defense, then I guess we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree

[Captain Matt]

Everyone knows you will be sued, most likely by multiple people, if you ever have to justifiably use your weapon.

Then it should be easy as pie for you to cite a dozen or more self defense shooting lawsuits that went to trial in Texas where the defendant wasn't first convicted in a criminal trial, and wasn't a government employee.

You have never heard of people being sued for self-defense? Not sure what to say, I guess you can start with my LTC instructor who gave us several he personally knew of. I have a relative that sees all the lawsuits brought against companies every day, it is truly ridiculous, everyone sues for everything. I am simply pointing out that there are risks to thinking HB435 gives you a free pass, but I get the feeling some here just want to argue angrily instead of having a productive conversation. If people want to think that 30.06 is meaningless to them, and that they won't get sued by anyone for using a gun in self defense, then I guess we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree

OK. I understand. A dozen may be too difficult. How about citing ONE in Texas in the last five years that was justified and the lawsuit went to trial.