30.06 Liability Question

[camlott]

I'm still new around here so I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this. I did a search for this topic and didn't come up with anything.

If I were to be at an establishment that had properly posted a 30.06 sign and a situation occurred where I was unable to defend myself or family... Does posting the 30.06 (which essentially takes away my right to defend myself) then make that establishment responsible / liable for my protection? Could they be held liable if myself or family member were injured or killed while on their premises?

I doubt there have been any cases to test this, but just curious as to your thoughts.

I would think a lawyer could argue that posting a 30.06 sign makes that establishment responsible (liable) for the safety of anyone on their premises, since it would be illegal for me to carry (therefore defend myself).

All it would take would be one successful case and I believe not too many places would dare post a 30.06 sign IMHO.

[Hos]

Not a lawyer but I think you could sue regardless if the establishment had a sign or not. Not saying that you would win though, unless it was a store employee of course.

[PetrucciFan]

The argument would be made that you did not HAVE to be there. You knew that the premises were properly posted and you disarmed and entered at your own risk. That is why I will not enter a building with a proper 30.06 sign.

However, both hospitals in my town are properly posted, so I think one would have a better argument in that situation. If I had to be at the hospital (i.e. my child's birth), then I obviously could not carry and I think that they hospital should provide for my protection. I have no other choice but to be there. We recently had a new baby and I contacted the head of security at the hospital and voiced my concern, but it was like talking to a dumb brick-wall.

[HankB]

IIRC, several years ago a lawyer with the Texas Building Owner's and Manager's Association made just that point; failure to post a sign would not incur liability since only those licensed by the state could carry. On the other hand, posting a sign disarming someone licensed by the state to carry could be construed as accepting liability for that person's safety.

Perfectly reasonable to me, but IANAL, and this is only one lawyer's opinion . . . which, AFAIK, has not yet been either established or discredited by case law.

[C-dub]

Here's a link to a thread I started some time back. It doesn't seem like this has ever been tried in the courts and I think, as pointed out by some of those that replied to my question, it looks like someone else can be held liable our safety in general if something bad happens. I, personally, disagree with this in principle. I'll try and pick something very generic. Should, for example, a convenience store, otherwise known as "stop and robs", be held liable for my safety if someone comes in to rob them and shoots me in the process? Whether I'm armed or not? I don't think they should. What about another place that is not typically known for being robbed, like maybe a barber shop or candle store?

I think it is the same reason that my company could not be held liable for me being robbed and injured or killed on my way home because my company does not even allow me to store my weapon in my vehicle on company property. I could be wrong, but I think this is correct.


http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... le#p349545" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dragonfighter]

This has been a conundrum for me. I for one do not want the state telling me who I may or may not allow into/onto my property, or anyone else for that matter. However, if I allow unfettered public access to my place of business am I not creating a hazard to all by posting 30.06? I mean every ne'er do well in the world can walk in without scrutiny yet if I'm discovered with my CCW I'm a criminal?

I see the argument for "not having to be there" and assuming risk. But sometimes this places an unnecessary burden if you live out a ways and have to now travel an hour to buy groceries, or take your laboring wife in to the hospital. BTW, my last three grand kids were born on their living room floor to avoid the mandatory mistreatment of newborns and general lack of security.

If I had an office, place of business that was not open to or allowed the general public unfettered access, then I would be less likely to cringe at their exercising the 30.06 option.

So I don't know if we can prove a liability but rest assured, anything happens to me or mine, there will be a test case.

[HankB]

IMHO, there should be liability assumed by any business that knowingly creates a victim disarmament zone and then fails to protect those persons disarmed by their policy.

Of course, I'm enough of a realist to understand - sadly - that what I think should be often is quite different from what actually is.

[HankB]

IMHO, there should be liability assumed by any business that knowingly creates a victim disarmament zone and then fails to protect those persons disarmed by their policy. Disarm a person licenced by the state to carry a weapon, and it is reasonably forseeable that the chances of that person becoming a crime victim have been increased.

Of course, I'm enough of a realist to understand - sadly - that what I think should be often is quite different from what actually is.

[glocklvr]

This is a tough 1 for me because I think there are way too many frivilous lawsuits as it is but at the same time I also think that a 30.06 sign = an easy victim zone I personally just send the economic message by not spending my hard earned $$$ in such places.

[gwashorn]

Yes, I do not do business if at all possible with any business with a 30.06 sign.

Gary