TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:GO VOLS!

Indeed! Makes me proud of my home state.

Me too.

Me three.

ScottDLS wrote:The better option might be to not allow the criminal power of the State to be used via a sign to disarm private citizens. That way the owner could post a sign and you could ignore it and carry concealed and no one would be harmed or be breaking the law.

Signs do not have force of law in many states, and it seems to be working for them. The other great part of it is that it eliminates the contention that sometimes occurs between those that OC and CC.

Private property owners should still have the right to ask you to leave, but they should simply just have to tell you, much like they would for any other infraction.

Texas LTC holders have shown themselves to be a very law abiding group, and I highly doubt that being asked to leave a store will all of the sudden turn them into crazed maniacs.

For the same reason that we don't need more laws regulating guns because we only need to enforce the existing laws, the same principle is at play here. Even if you were injured as a result of a ban guns sign, you'd still have to prove it in a court of law. Wait! There already are laws on the books stating that if a business is provably the cause of an injury on said business premises, they'd be held financially liable! No need for this law and no need for hipocrisy when it comes to our claim that no new gun ban laws are needed because we only need to enforce current laws. IANAL.

drjoker wrote:For the same reason that we don't need more laws regulating guns because we only need to enforce the existing laws, the same principle is at play here. Even if you were injured as a result of a ban guns sign, you'd still have to prove it in a court of law. Wait! There already are laws on the books stating that if a business is provably the cause of an injury on said business premises, they'd be held financially liable! No need for this law and no need for hipocrisy when it comes to our claim that no new gun ban laws are needed because we only need to enforce current laws. IANAL.

I agree that a lawsuit should succeed under current laws. And I really wish that a few would get filed (don't wish for anyone to get hurt, just that those who are hurt would file suit). To be clear, I am not saying that the business owner should be held 100% liable for the injury, just that they should be held at least partially responsible since they actively created the dangerous situation.

Yes, I could have stayed home and avoided the situation. But that does not mean that the business owner can do anything they want to endanger their customers with impunity. If it did, then 90% of all personal injury lawsuits against business owners would be thrown out automatically.

Pariah3j wrote:This sounds like a good thing at first, I would hope it to have the intended consequences and really make businesses take notice that disarming the public and making themselves a soft target means they assume responsibility. This could mean less signs and restricted areas, it could mean more posted security, or they might just assume the risk and continue to pander to the pansies.

But there is something in the back of my brain nagging me about the 'law of unintended consequences' ... for a reason that I've yet to put words or my finger on, something about this law bugs me. Maybe its my libertarian instinct that less laws = better, so a law to allow lawsuits seems backasswards.

As others have pointed out, the less laws = better applies to not making laws that infringe on our rights in the first place.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:This sounds like a good thing at first, I would hope it to have the intended consequences and really make businesses take notice that disarming the public and making themselves a soft target means they assume responsibility. This could mean less signs and restricted areas, it could mean more posted security, or they might just assume the risk and continue to pander to the pansies.

But there is something in the back of my brain nagging me about the 'law of unintended consequences' ... for a reason that I've yet to put words or my finger on, something about this law bugs me. Maybe its my libertarian instinct that less laws = better, so a law to allow lawsuits seems backasswards.

As others have pointed out, the less laws = better applies to not making laws that infringe on our rights in the first place.

True, no real disagreement there. Its just some part of my lizard brain gets to tingling when I think about this law, can't put my finger on it but like I said, I think its because a part of me wonders what the long term, broader implications may end up being. More food for thought/thinking out-loud more then anything...

Oldgringo wrote:I question that part about unarmed 'to or from' a place. That sounds like something written in the bill for the lawyers' $$$ benefit. Anybody could claim they were on their way to anywhere. What if the "no guns" place was only one of several stops? I call BoguS on that provision in the bill.

I can see what the intent is...

I have a friend who commutes to work in downtown Houston from the Woodlands. His employer does not permit CC or OC in the building. If he drives, sure, he could leave it in the car, but he doesn't have the $$ to pay for parking everyday, so he is forced to disarm before taking the bus each day.

So there he is...downtown Houston...disarmed for one reason only: his employer won't allow him to have his gun. If he gets attacked while walking across the street to lunch, or if he gets attacked at the bus stop, or anywhere else...tough luck. Because of his employer's preferences, he is left defenseless. He had ZERO options to have his gun with him, since early in the morning.

Sure, some will say, "get another job". I say, "get real". He has a family to feed, and he shouldn't be forced to job hop each time a new employer gets all squishy and posts their building. It's about time that all signs become worthless, if you ask me.

No, I'm not trampling on property rights. I do believe any property owner should be allowed to ask anyone to leave at any time, for any reason. But enabling them to have the force of law just by posting a sign? That doesn't work for 'no shoes, no service', 'proper attire required' or any other sign, so why should it work for guns?

But until we get to where no sign has any legal standing at all...I suggest that those who post them be liable for their decisions, and Tennessee has taken the lead on this. Go Vols, indeed!

What I hope could come from this is a reduction in the knee-jerk reaction of so many businesses in Texas, to the open carry law, where they not only post 30.07 signs but for some reason also added 30.06 signs. Maybe the sign dealers offer a deal and a pitch, "As long as you're stopping open carry, why not be really safe, and forbid any guns."

Something like the TN law, might encourage thinking by a business owner. Discussion surrounding such a law might get their attention too. DPS says that a CHL/LTC holder in Texas is 5% as likely to commit a crime as the general public and only 40% as likely as a law enforcement officer. That fact coming out in a news story about a proposed new law might have an effect. This has little implication for me, since I just avoid 30.06 places, occasionally letting management know that I am avoiding their stores. Whole Foods and that other "health food" chain come to mind. I've contacted both of them to thank them for saving me money, since they don't want my business, and I found all the same stuff at Kroger and HEB for a lot less money. It is an inconvenience, though, when I go to a new place and discover when I get there a 30.06 sign, even though I search texas3006.com first.

steveincowtown wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:The better option might be to not allow the criminal power of the State to be used via a sign to disarm private citizens. That way the owner could post a sign and you could ignore it and carry concealed and no one would be harmed or be breaking the law.

Signs do not have force of law in many states, and it seems to be working for them. The other great part of it is that it eliminates the contention that sometimes occurs between those that OC and CC.

Private property owners should still have the right to ask you to leave, but they should simply just have to tell you, much like they would for any other infraction.

Texas LTC holders have shown themselves to be a very law abiding group, and I highly doubt that being asked to leave a store will all of the sudden turn them into crazed maniacs.

TXBO wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:GO VOLS!

Indeed! Makes me proud of my home state.

Me too.

Me three.

My family was from Tennessee. I was born in Knoxville. However, after the way the TVA "STOLE" farm land from my family (fair market price you know) when the Tellico dam was built. I don't care if I ever set foot in Tennessee again.

WTR wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:GO VOLS!

Indeed! Makes me proud of my home state.

Me too.

Me three.

My family was from Tennessee. I was born in Knoxville. However, after the way the TVA "STOLE" farm land from my family (fair market price you know) when the Tellico dam was built. I don't care if I ever set foot in Tennessee again.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is a federal entity not a state thinghy....but you knew that, yes?

WTR wrote: My family was from Tennessee. I was born in Knoxville. However, after the way the TVA "STOLE" farm land from my family (fair market price you know) when the Tellico dam was built. I don't care if I ever set foot in Tennessee again.

Eminent Domain is rarely a windfall for the "seller"... unless of course the seller is a politician.

drjoker wrote:For the same reason that we don't need more laws regulating guns because we only need to enforce the existing laws, the same principle is at play here. Even if you were injured as a result of a ban guns sign, you'd still have to prove it in a court of law. Wait! There already are laws on the books stating that if a business is provably the cause of an injury on said business premises, they'd be held financially liable! No need for this law and no need for hipocrisy when it comes to our claim that no new gun ban laws are needed because we only need to enforce current laws. IANAL.

The issue is the "cause" part. The victims of the Aurora Theatre shooting just lost a lawsuit on this.

Oh, and now the theatre is suing the victims to recover attorney costs. Details here.

Current laws aren't working real well here.

Just sent to my representative;

"Rep. Fletcher;
Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I am a Texas LTC holder. I fully understand business owners rights to post their property restricting firearm carry on their property - CC and OC. Although I refrain from giving my business to these posted properties, sometimes they are unavoidable - such as doctor offices, etc. I ask that you, as my representative, push for laws as in Tennessee where the posted property takes the liability for any injuries or death on their property to someone who is licensed to carry, but forbidden to do so due to their rules.

Thank you for your time and representing myself and others like me."

YouTuber, TheYankeeMarshal, has an interesting take on the new TN law. He implies that the insurance industry is to blame for a lot of 'no gun' signs, and that they will now have to change their tune in TN.

https://youtu.be/gHbPfwy9ZRI