Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
SIGFan43
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:26 am

Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby SIGFan43 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:03 pm

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.
SIGFan43


Tex1961
Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:11 am
Location: Frisco, Texas

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby Tex1961 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:59 pm

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.
NORM CROSBY
When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.


rotor
Senior Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby rotor » Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:30 am

SIGFan43 wrote: I am concerned for my friends who don't carry.

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.

User avatar

LDB415
Senior Member
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:01 am
Location: Houston south suburb

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby LDB415 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:57 am

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.
NRA Life Member, CCC Life Member, GSSF Member
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.
Common sense is only right wing if you are too far to the left.
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts: 10334
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby jmra » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:42 am

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.

Why? Did someone force you to enter the establishment? If you don’t like the way someone does business go elsewhere.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

User avatar

gtolbert09
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:35 pm
Location: Flower Mound,Tx

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby gtolbert09 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:46 am

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.


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?
USAF 1983-1994
NRA Member
TSRA Member


flechero
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby flechero » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:01 am

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.

User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby rtschl » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:40 am

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

User avatar

LDB415
Senior Member
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:01 am
Location: Houston south suburb

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby LDB415 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:33 am

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!
NRA Life Member, CCC Life Member, GSSF Member
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.
Common sense is only right wing if you are too far to the left.
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts: 10334
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby jmra » Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:48 pm

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!

Sure, all it takes is a law stating they have to. Hope and pray.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2646
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:20 am

jmra wrote:
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.

Why? Did someone force you to enter the establishment? If you don’t like the way someone does business go elsewhere.


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.

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.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


tool4daman
Junior Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:53 am
Location: Frisco

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby tool4daman » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:11 am

jmra wrote:
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!

Sure, all it takes is a law stating they have to. Hope and pray.


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).

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'.


philip964
Senior Member
Posts: 5593
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby philip964 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:26 pm

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.

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5773
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby ELB » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:09 pm

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. viewtopic.php?f=94&t=69573&hilit=walmart+self+defense
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts: 10334
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Liability of business owners who ban licensed handguns

Postby jmra » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:52 pm

tool4daman wrote:
jmra wrote:
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!

Sure, all it takes is a law stating they have to. Hope and pray.


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).

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.

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.
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


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests