Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
I live in a gated community that only closes its gates between 9:00pm-5:00am. We have a community room/leasing office that has 30.06/30.07 signage at both building entrances. The signs were installed and our leases added an addendum when the complex changed owners in January, 2016. A couple of months ago, the complex was bought by a multi-state company in Illinois. We have many activities in this building, including regular luncheons, bingo games, exercise classes, etc. I have a LTC, so I cannot enter the building with my handgun.
When the south Texas mass church shooting happened, the manager hinted that the new owners were considering pulling down the 30.06 signs, but keeping the 30.07 signs. Today I found out that they have been dragging their feet waiting on their insurance company opinion.
My main question is this: It is my understanding that current Texas law protects owners from liability if they ban legal concealed handguns, and a licensed gun owner is injured or killed in an attack by a third party if he was inside unarmed, leaving his gun in his car or apartment instead due to rules of the owner. Is this a correct interpretation of the law? I know that in the last session an attempt was made to reverse this law.
I'm wondering if the owners are responsible legally if an event is open to guests, who are unarmed, and are injured or killed by a third party. There is no armed security or metal detectors in this building, and the gates are always open when these events occur, most of the time.
What I have done is I've quit going to any functions in the building, but continue to legally carry concealed or open anywhere else on the complex property. Not that it matters, but this is a 55+ senior community, and I am concerned for my friends who don't carry.
When the south Texas mass church shooting happened, the manager hinted that the new owners were considering pulling down the 30.06 signs, but keeping the 30.07 signs. Today I found out that they have been dragging their feet waiting on their insurance company opinion.
My main question is this: It is my understanding that current Texas law protects owners from liability if they ban legal concealed handguns, and a licensed gun owner is injured or killed in an attack by a third party if he was inside unarmed, leaving his gun in his car or apartment instead due to rules of the owner. Is this a correct interpretation of the law? I know that in the last session an attempt was made to reverse this law.
I'm wondering if the owners are responsible legally if an event is open to guests, who are unarmed, and are injured or killed by a third party. There is no armed security or metal detectors in this building, and the gates are always open when these events occur, most of the time.
What I have done is I've quit going to any functions in the building, but continue to legally carry concealed or open anywhere else on the complex property. Not that it matters, but this is a 55+ senior community, and I am concerned for my friends who don't carry.
SIGFan43
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
I think you have a good argument, but it's flawed. By state law, a private business, entity has the right to post 30.06 / 30.07 signs. As such I can't see where they would incur any liability as a result.
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
I think you are doing as much as you can do and there is no liability for the complex owners if someone is shot without having defense of a concealed handgun. On the other hand, let your friends who don't carry take care of their own exposure. Are they pushing to have the 30.06 signs removed? If enough of them did carry those signs might be down. Your concern is you and yours.SIGFan43 wrote: I am concerned for my friends who don't carry.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 1662
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:01 am
- Location: Houston south suburb
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
Anywhere that posts a 30.06 sign should be fully liable both civilly and criminally for any injury to a CHL holder caused by a criminal action while on their premises.
It's fine if you disagree. I can't force you to be correct.
NRA Life Member, TSRA Life Member, GSSF Member
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.
NRA Life Member, TSRA Life Member, GSSF Member
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
Why? Did someone force you to enter the establishment? If you don’t like the way someone does business go elsewhere.LDB415 wrote:Anywhere that posts a 30.06 sign should be fully liable both civilly and criminally for any injury to a CHL holder caused by a criminal action while on their premises.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:35 pm
- Location: Flower Mound,Tx
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
Didn't Tennessee or Kentucky just pass a law that made business owners liable if they post signs, and a disarmed CHL is injured during a life threatening event?LDB415 wrote:Anywhere that posts a 30.06 sign should be fully liable both civilly and criminally for any injury to a CHL holder caused by a criminal action while on their premises.
USAF 1983-1994
NRA LifeTime Member
TSRA Member
NRA LifeTime Member
TSRA Member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 3485
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
- Location: Central Texas
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
Tex1961 wrote:I think you have a good argument, but it's flawed. By state law, a private business, entity has the right to post 30.06 / 30.07 signs. As such I can't see where they would incur any liability as a result.
Childish example but still - the owners has the right to stick his foot out... and if he trips me and I get hurt, he would be liable.
We have the right to do a lot of things, but there are usually consequences for our choices.
Having said all that I think the state or courts would disgree with me, but not because it makes sense. My feeling is that if a business invites the public in, and makes it's living off the public, then the public should be able to enter just as they were dressed and in public.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1244
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
- Location: Fort Worth
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
I wish any no gun sign would be classified as an attractive nuisance like swimming pools with no fence. But I don't think any court would rule that way.
Ron
NRA Member
NRA Member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 1662
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:01 am
- Location: Houston south suburb
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
If businesses can be forced to serve clients they prefer to not serve under penalty of law they can be required to allow concealed carry since they won't even know if/when it is happening!
It's fine if you disagree. I can't force you to be correct.
NRA Life Member, TSRA Life Member, GSSF Member
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.
NRA Life Member, TSRA Life Member, GSSF Member
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
Sure, all it takes is a law stating they have to. Hope and pray.LDB415 wrote:If businesses can be forced to serve clients they prefer to not serve under penalty of law they can be required to allow concealed carry since they won't even know if/when it is happening!
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 4337
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
Did someone force the business owner to invite customers onto their property? Taking away all rights just because you chose to do something is ridiculous, IMHO.jmra wrote:Why? Did someone force you to enter the establishment? If you don’t like the way someone does business go elsewhere.LDB415 wrote:Anywhere that posts a 30.06 sign should be fully liable both civilly and criminally for any injury to a CHL holder caused by a criminal action while on their premises.
If a property owner makes a choice to invite people onto their property, and then makes a choice to intentionally create an unsafe environment for those guests, then they should be held responsible (at least in part) for their customers injuries that inevitably result. Yes, we all have rights, and yes, we are all able to make choices. But we should all be held responsible for the results of our choices.
-
- Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:53 am
- Location: Frisco
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
As a conservative, I tend to land on the side of fewer laws are a good thing. I don't like the idea of the government forcing businesses to serve clients they prefer not to serve (although I do understand the argument- not necessarily agree- for these laws given the Jim Crow era).jmra wrote:Sure, all it takes is a law stating they have to. Hope and pray.LDB415 wrote:If businesses can be forced to serve clients they prefer to not serve under penalty of law they can be required to allow concealed carry since they won't even know if/when it is happening!
As a matter of consistency, I'd have to say I don't think businesses should be forced by law to allow either open or concealed carry in their establishments. I do wish fewer businesses prohibited open carry, and certainly concealed carry.
That said- I do think a legal argument SHOULD exist that if I am denied my constitutional right, and an injury does occur to either me or my family, and I was not able to defend against that threat because of a business prohibiting my right to carry, that business should be held negligent/liable.
I know that is a pipe dream. As someone stated earlier, I don't believe any court would agree with my thoughts on this.
Best advice I was ever given- Don't mess with the dog while he's eatin'.
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
I think any business that bans concealed carry is taking on the responsibility for security for their customers.
Then failure by them to provide armed security, in the event that an incident did occur would to me make them liable for damages.
My opinion and the courts in Colorado ruled otherwise and even hit the victims families with attorney fees.
Certainly would be a nice law for the Texas legislature to consider.
Probably would not want me on a jury, in one of these cases, if you posted signs.
Then failure by them to provide armed security, in the event that an incident did occur would to me make them liable for damages.
My opinion and the courts in Colorado ruled otherwise and even hit the victims families with attorney fees.
Certainly would be a nice law for the Texas legislature to consider.
Probably would not want me on a jury, in one of these cases, if you posted signs.
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
At least as far as the law goes, constitutional protections are against the government in favor of citizens, not against one set of citizens against another.
However, there is a doctrine of public policy in which the courts deem certain rights or policies to be so good that although employers may not enforce rules against them. For example employers may not have polices or rules that require employees to break the law or not serve customers based on race and so forth.
As to self-defense, this varies from state to state. There is another thread here that discusses a case where Walmart in Utah terminated some employees after some shoplifters were detained, and in one case a shoplifter produced a knife, and in another, a gun. The employees disarmed the shoplifters in both cases and Walmart fired them. The employees argued in Federal court that their termination was unlawful because self-defense is such a fundamentally good public policy that Walmart can't enforce rules against it. Walmart argued that the employees broke a Walmart rule that if a detained shoplifter (detaining was not against policy) produced a weapon, the employee(s) must disengage to a safe position and call the cops.
The federal court asked the Utah Supreme Court to rule on whether self-defense fell with in the realm of public policy. They did, they decided that self-defense is good public policy in Utah and employers may not enforce rules against it. I haven't run down yet whether the employees then won their lawsuit or not.
Now customers are not employees and I don't know what Texas labor law for public policy says, if anything, about self-defense, but I could see a similar argument applied to the 30.06/30.07 situation -- if not invalidating the "no LTC carry" provisions altogether, at least arguing in favor of the private party posting the signs incurring some additional liability.
However, 30.06 has been in place a long time, and if it was ever challenged, it prevailed, so I don't see any Texas court ruling that a business who forbids LTC carry of any kind being held liable for anything.
That will take a legislative change.
Here's the old thread on Ray v. Walmart. I will be updating it in a few minutes. http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... lf+defense
However, there is a doctrine of public policy in which the courts deem certain rights or policies to be so good that although employers may not enforce rules against them. For example employers may not have polices or rules that require employees to break the law or not serve customers based on race and so forth.
As to self-defense, this varies from state to state. There is another thread here that discusses a case where Walmart in Utah terminated some employees after some shoplifters were detained, and in one case a shoplifter produced a knife, and in another, a gun. The employees disarmed the shoplifters in both cases and Walmart fired them. The employees argued in Federal court that their termination was unlawful because self-defense is such a fundamentally good public policy that Walmart can't enforce rules against it. Walmart argued that the employees broke a Walmart rule that if a detained shoplifter (detaining was not against policy) produced a weapon, the employee(s) must disengage to a safe position and call the cops.
The federal court asked the Utah Supreme Court to rule on whether self-defense fell with in the realm of public policy. They did, they decided that self-defense is good public policy in Utah and employers may not enforce rules against it. I haven't run down yet whether the employees then won their lawsuit or not.
Now customers are not employees and I don't know what Texas labor law for public policy says, if anything, about self-defense, but I could see a similar argument applied to the 30.06/30.07 situation -- if not invalidating the "no LTC carry" provisions altogether, at least arguing in favor of the private party posting the signs incurring some additional liability.
However, 30.06 has been in place a long time, and if it was ever challenged, it prevailed, so I don't see any Texas court ruling that a business who forbids LTC carry of any kind being held liable for anything.
That will take a legislative change.
Here's the old thread on Ray v. Walmart. I will be updating it in a few minutes. http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... lf+defense
USAF 1982-2005
____________
____________
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns
Do you have a constitutional right to be armed on privately owned property? If not, then you are not being denied a right which nullifies the argument.tool4daman wrote:As a conservative, I tend to land on the side of fewer laws are a good thing. I don't like the idea of the government forcing businesses to serve clients they prefer not to serve (although I do understand the argument- not necessarily agree- for these laws given the Jim Crow era).jmra wrote:Sure, all it takes is a law stating they have to. Hope and pray.LDB415 wrote:If businesses can be forced to serve clients they prefer to not serve under penalty of law they can be required to allow concealed carry since they won't even know if/when it is happening!
As a matter of consistency, I'd have to say I don't think businesses should be forced by law to allow either open or concealed carry in their establishments. I do wish fewer businesses prohibited open carry, and certainly concealed carry.
That said- I do think a legal argument SHOULD exist that if I am denied my constitutional right, and an injury does occur to either me or my family, and I was not able to defend against that threat because of a business prohibiting my right to carry, that business should be held negligent/liable.
I know that is a pipe dream. As someone stated earlier, I don't believe any court would agree with my thoughts on this.
The legislature has repeatedly expressed its belief in private property rights. I don’t see that changing.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member