TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:It would seem to this po' boy that a "Shall Issue State" pretty well sets the stage for the lawsuit against a business that has a "no CC admit" policy. The business owner's denial/refusal to accept the states" Shall Issue Law" should be construed to be Owner's acceptance of the responsibilty for the patron's safety that he denied them.

Those same laws that make Texas a "Shall Issue State" also provide property and business owners the right to post a 30.06 sign.

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:It would seem to this po' boy that a "Shall Issue State" pretty well sets the stage for the lawsuit against a business that has a "no CC admit" policy. The business owner's denial/refusal to accept the states" Shall Issue Law" should be construed to be Owner's acceptance of the responsibilty for the patron's safety that he denied them.

Those same laws that make Texas a "Shall Issue State" also provide property and business owners the right to post a 30.06 sign.

Exactly! When an owner exercises his right to post a 30.06, he assumes the responsibility of providing the protection/security/safety, etc., etc. that a CH licensee could have reasonably expected had that customer/patron been allowed his legal CCW to protect himself.

Thank you WildBill! I now know the exuberance of my cousin Vinnie.

Oldgringo wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:It would seem to this po' boy that a "Shall Issue State" pretty well sets the stage for the lawsuit against a business that has a "no CC admit" policy. The business owner's denial/refusal to accept the states" Shall Issue Law" should be construed to be Owner's acceptance of the responsibilty for the patron's safety that he denied them.

Those same laws that make Texas a "Shall Issue State" also provide property and business owners the right to post a 30.06 sign.

Exactly! When an owner exercises his right to post a 30.06, he assumes the responsibility of providing the protection/security/safety, etc., etc. that a CHL licensee could have reasonably expected had that customer/patron been allowed his legal CCW to protect himself.

Thank you WildBill! I now know the exuberance of my cousin Vinnie.

The responsibility of a business owner to provide a safe and secure environment is a seperate issue than whether or not you can carry a weapon on his premises. Let's say that you are armed and get shot by some BGs in a business that is not posted. Does that absolve the business of any liability?

Ask your cousin Vinnie what he thinks about that.

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:It would seem to this po' boy that a "Shall Issue State" pretty well sets the stage for the lawsuit against a business that has a "no CC admit" policy. The business owner's denial/refusal to accept the states" Shall Issue Law" should be construed to be Owner's acceptance of the responsibilty for the patron's safety that he denied them.

Those same laws that make Texas a "Shall Issue State" also provide property and business owners the right to post a 30.06 sign.

Exactly! When an owner exercises his right to post a 30.06, he assumes the responsibility of providing the protection/security/safety, etc., etc. that a CHL licensee could have reasonably expected had that customer/patron been allowed his legal CCW to protect himself.

Thank you WildBill! I now know the exuberance of my cousin Vinnie.

The responsibility of a business owner to provide a safe and secure environment is a seperate issue than whether or not you can carry a weapon on his premises. Let's say that you are armed and get shot by some BGs in a business that is not posted. Does that absolve the business of any liability?

Ask your cousin Vinnie what he thinks about that.

I talked with Vinnie: He said the guy that got shot with his CC still in its holster should have been payin' better attention to what was goin' on roun' him and expressed his regrets. Vinnie went on to say that he would take the case against the yout what shot him and the shop owner.

tallmike wrote:I think everyone should simply accept responsibility for our own choices on where to go, and stop threatening lawsuits over everything. Everyone hates frivolous lawsuits but when our sacred cow is the one on the chopping block then its OK to jam up the courts when simply voting with our feet can make the difference.

How far do we take that? Should OSHA violations be tossed out if the company posted a sign? After all, people had the choice whether to enter the dangerous environment.

Can I post a "Warning: Boobytraps" on my home and avoid civil and criminal liability if an intruder sets off the trap?

Cobra Medic wrote:

tallmike wrote:I think everyone should simply accept responsibility for our own choices on where to go, and stop threatening lawsuits over everything. Everyone hates frivolous lawsuits but when our sacred cow is the one on the chopping block then its OK to jam up the courts when simply voting with our feet can make the difference.

How far do we take that? Should OSHA violations be tossed out if the company posted a sign? After all, people had the choice whether to enter the dangerous environment.

Can I post a "Warning: Boobytraps" on my home and avoid civil and criminal liability if an intruder sets off the trap?

You would probably be surprised by my answers to the above questions, but this is not the place for a debate on those topics. I will say, I lean heavily libertarian and place a great deal of weight on personal responsibility.

Here's another way to look at it, as regards the rights of a business to prohibit concealed carry:http://www.itakeliberty.com/2010/06/no- ... /#more-362

Personally, I simply obey the law, and I don't patronize any business with an ant-gun sign.

Oldgringo wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:It would seem to this po' boy that a "Shall Issue State" pretty well sets the stage for the lawsuit against a business that has a "no CC admit" policy. The business owner's denial/refusal to accept the states" Shall Issue Law" should be construed to be Owner's acceptance of the responsibilty for the patron's safety that he denied them.

Those same laws that make Texas a "Shall Issue State" also provide property and business owners the right to post a 30.06 sign.

Exactly! When an owner exercises his right to post a 30.06, he assumes the responsibility of providing the protection/security/safety, etc., etc. that a CH licensee could have reasonably expected had that customer/patron been allowed his legal CCW to protect himself.

Thank you WildBill! I now know the exuberance of my cousin Vinnie.

Hang on guys; remember I said this would be a new theory of recovery in Texas and it may well fail.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Hang on guys; remember I said this would be a new theory of recovery in Texas and it may well fail.

Chas.

I not only see a possibility of failure, I can see blowback coming out of it. You might conceivably advance the case through the various levels of the courts until you get before a judge who decides that the 30.06 signage requirements are too onerous for private property rights of business owners and strikes those requirements down.

Just a thought....

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Hang on guys; remember I said this would be a new theory of recovery in Texas and it may well fail.

Chas.

I not only see a possibility of failure, I can see blowback coming out of it. You might conceivably advance the case through the various levels of the courts until you get before a judge who decides that the 30.06 signage requirements are too onerous for private property rights of business owners and strikes those requirements down.

Just a thought....

Thankfully, that's not a possibility. There's nothing about TPC §30.06 that is unconstitutional.

Chas.

So an employer says employees cannot have a weapon on the premisis including the parking lot.
Me being a law abiding citizen and employee leave my gun at home.
99% of the time I carry a gun except on the way to and from work.

Some psycho goes crazy on the highway on my way to work. I get shot because I was unarmed. I was unarmed because I cannot have a gun in my car at work.

Is my employer liable?

Ty

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Hang on guys; remember I said this would be a new theory of recovery in Texas and it may well fail.

Chas.

I not only see a possibility of failure, I can see blowback coming out of it. You might conceivably advance the case through the various levels of the courts until you get before a judge who decides that the 30.06 signage requirements are too onerous for private property rights of business owners and strikes those requirements down.

Just a thought....

Inasmuch as the Oldgringo lives out in the boonies where that renowned TCHL sage, 03lightningrocks, has questioned the availability of indoor plumbing, "It ain't me, babe. Nah, nah ,nah, it ain't me babe". You city slickers will have to deal with this question - sooner or later.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Hang on guys; remember I said this would be a new theory of recovery in Texas and it may well fail.

Chas.

I not only see a possibility of failure, I can see blowback coming out of it. You might conceivably advance the case through the various levels of the courts until you get before a judge who decides that the 30.06 signage requirements are too onerous for private property rights of business owners and strikes those requirements down.

Just a thought....

Thankfully, that's not a possibility. There's nothing about TPC §30.06 that is unconstitutional.

Chas.

Good. I'm relieved. It's not that I want to be timid about it, but neither do I want to rush in where angels fear to tread. I assume then that the constitutionality of TPC §30.06 has already been tested?

Cobra Medic wrote:

tallmike wrote:I think everyone should simply accept responsibility for our own choices on where to go, and stop threatening lawsuits over everything. Everyone hates frivolous lawsuits but when our sacred cow is the one on the chopping block then its OK to jam up the courts when simply voting with our feet can make the difference.

How far do we take that? Should OSHA violations be tossed out if the company posted a sign? After all, people had the choice whether to enter the dangerous environment.

Can I post a "Warning: Boobytraps" on my home and avoid civil and criminal liability if an intruder sets off the trap?

I don't think OSHA would have anything to do with a gun related injury unless the gun were required for the job and maybe not even then. Remember, many businesses in Oklahoma claimed that allowing people to leave weapons secured in their vehicles in the businesses parking lots would violate OSHA regulations to provide a safe work environment. This is why it did not pass the second to the last time it was brought up. However, OSHA later said that their regulations in no way should be interpreted this way and the next time it was brought up it passed and viola, Oklahoma has a parking lot exemption law. So, unless I've completely misunderstood your analogy, which is entirely possible, I don't think it makes any sense.

However, I do agree that if I still chose to enter an anti-CHL business and something happened the business should not be held responsible. I'm not so sure about this if I'm an employee of the business. Especially if the businesses policy changed after I began working there. Jobs aren't that easy to come by and in my profession I won't find many, if any, places that are not anti-CHL or even posted with valid 30.06 signs. BTW, my employer does not have any 30.06 signs on the grounds or in the employee handbook and no one of authority has told me that I cannot carry at work, but I still don't. I like my job a lot.

Would I sue if something happened to me at work because I was unable to defend myself? You betcha! I might lose, but I'd give it a try.

C-dub wrote:

Cobra Medic wrote:

tallmike wrote:I think everyone should simply accept responsibility for our own choices on where to go, and stop threatening lawsuits over everything. Everyone hates frivolous lawsuits but when our sacred cow is the one on the chopping block then its OK to jam up the courts when simply voting with our feet can make the difference.

How far do we take that? Should OSHA violations be tossed out if the company posted a sign? After all, people had the choice whether to enter the dangerous environment.

Can I post a "Warning: Boobytraps" on my home and avoid civil and criminal liability if an intruder sets off the trap?

I don't think OSHA would have anything to do with a gun related injury unless the gun were required for the job and maybe not even then. Remember, many businesses in Oklahoma claimed that allowing people to leave weapons secured in their vehicles in the businesses parking lots would violate OSHA regulations to provide a safe work environment. This is why it did not pass the second to the last time it was brought up. However, OSHA later said that their regulations in no way should be interpreted this way and the next time it was brought up it passed and viola, Oklahoma has a parking lot exemption law. So, unless I've completely misunderstood your analogy, which is entirely possible, I don't think it makes any sense.

However, I do agree that if I still chose to enter an anti-CHL business and something happened the business should not be held responsible. I'm not so sure about this if I'm an employee of the business. Especially if the businesses policy changed after I began working there. Jobs aren't that easy to come by and in my profession I won't find many, if any, places that are not anti-CHL or even posted with valid 30.06 signs. BTW, my employer does not have any 30.06 signs on the grounds or in the employee handbook and no one of authority has told me that I cannot carry at work, but I still don't. I like my job a lot.

Would I sue if something happened to me at work because I was unable to defend myself? You betcha! I might lose, but I'd give it a try.

Sorry, but the "worker's comp. bar" would would prohibit any suit against your employer, unless you were killed. Then your family could sue because the Texas Constitution guarantee's your family that right.

I don't see the logic of saying you wouldn't sue if you were injured as a customer, but you would if you were an employee. In both cases you chose to enter the premises knowing you cannot be armed.

Chas.