Soccerdad1995 wrote:GreenMan0352 wrote:John Galt wrote:Salty1 wrote:CZp10 wrote: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!