TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:We just got back from Cinemark Tinseltown in Grapevine (saw Star Wars), and it has a compliant 30.07 sign at each front entrance. I took a picture and listed it at texas3006.com.

I win. I did both (saw the movie, took pictures for 3006.com) last week.

But mine were posted first! Crossing the finish line first doesn't count if you don't notify the scorekeeper you're finished.

The wife and I are out to lunch at Chedders in The Colony and it's posted 30.07 I spoke with the manager and thanked for for Allowing CC.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:We just got back from Cinemark Tinseltown in Grapevine (saw Star Wars), and it has a compliant 30.07 sign at each front entrance. I took a picture and listed it at texas3006.com.

I win. I did both (saw the movie, took pictures for 3006.com) last week.

But mine were posted first! Crossing the finish line first doesn't count if you don't notify the scorekeeper you're finished.

Go to that website, search on "Grapevine" without other parameters and look at the list. I think that the duplication is because of the address.
Note the dates.

chasfm11 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:We just got back from Cinemark Tinseltown in Grapevine (saw Star Wars), and it has a compliant 30.07 sign at each front entrance. I took a picture and listed it at texas3006.com.

I win. I did both (saw the movie, took pictures for 3006.com) last week.

But mine were posted first! Crossing the finish line first doesn't count if you don't notify the scorekeeper you're finished.

Go to that website, search on "Grapevine" without other parameters and look at the list. I think that the duplication is because of the address.
Note the dates.

Ah.... I searched on "Tinseltown", and then "Cinemark Tinseltown", both with and without "Grapevine", and I promise you that your listing didn't come up or I wouldn't have bothered. But now it does, and of course, you're right..... yours predates mine. That's odd....... Maybe there is something wrong with the search algorithm. And if yours was there all along, why was mine approved by the moderator?

I'll have to mention it to Russell.

Out and about at lunch....picked up my internet order at the local Chilis, went to the library, got gas....checked businesses for signs as I passed...I still haven't seen a 30.06 or 30.07 sign on any business. I also have yet to see anyone open carrying.

VoiceofReason wrote:Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. If I am on someone’s property at their invitation or lawfully otherwise, they have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do. They also have the responsibility to ensure my safety and security.

completely with this part of your post.

I think we are getting too detailed when we talk about requiring metal detectors, etc. If the law simply said that a business posting a 30.06 and 30.07 sign is responsible for ensuring the safety of their forcibly unarmed customers, that should be enough.

It would be up to the business to determine how they go about providing safety to their customers. One way would be by installing metal detectors. Another would be by hiring armed guards. If something bad happens and a customer is the victim of a violent crime, a jury could decide whether the business took all reasonable precautions or whether the business was negligent in their duty.

Of course, the business could avoid this increased responsibility by taking down their signs....

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. If I am on someone’s property at their invitation or lawfully otherwise, they have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do. They also have the responsibility to ensure my safety and security.

completely with this part of your post.

I think we are getting too detailed when we talk about requiring metal detectors, etc. If the law simply said that a business posting a 30.06 and 30.07 sign is responsible for ensuring the safety of their forcibly unarmed customers, that should be enough.

It would be up to the business to determine how they go about providing safety to their customers. One way would be by installing metal detectors. Another would be by hiring armed guards. If something bad happens and a customer is the victim of a violent crime, a jury could decide whether the business took all reasonable precautions or whether the business was negligent in their duty.

Of course, the business could avoid this increased responsibility by taking down their signs....

But it could be a few years for a test case plus waiting for the outcome and waiting for the signs to come down. At my age that might mean they won’t come down in my lifetime.

If the law required metal detectors for just the 30.06 sign, I would bet that within a week of the law passing, you wouldn’t be able to find a 30.06 sign.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. If I am on someone’s property at their invitation or lawfully otherwise, they have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do. They also have the responsibility to ensure my safety and security.

completely with this part of your post.

I think we are getting too detailed when we talk about requiring metal detectors, etc. If the law simply said that a business posting a 30.06 and 30.07 sign is responsible for ensuring the safety of their forcibly unarmed customers, that should be enough.

It would be up to the business to determine how they go about providing safety to their customers. One way would be by installing metal detectors. Another would be by hiring armed guards. If something bad happens and a customer is the victim of a violent crime, a jury could decide whether the business took all reasonable precautions or whether the business was negligent in their duty.

Of course, the business could avoid this increased responsibility by taking down their signs....

So if a business didn't post 30.06 you would absolve them of all responsibility for the safety and security of their customers? Probably not, so now you have to write a law that anticipates every possibility. For example, what if a bad guy walks in to a store with a gun to rob it, a chl responds and shoots the bad guy but also hits a bystander? Does the store have any responsibility? Can they be sued for allowing carry which led to the shooting? Can they be held responsible for allowing the bad guy in the store that led to the shooting?

It quickly becomes extremely complicated to write a law that does the simple thing you claim to want to do - "persuade" store owners to allow you to carry in their store.

VoiceofReason wrote: If the law required metal detectors for just the 30.06 sign, I would bet that within a week of the law passing, you wouldn’t be able to find a 30.06 sign.

Or if liability insurance companies figured out that a big lawsuit was more likely to happen with disarmed customers and increased their liability insurance premiums, those 06 signs would disappear instantly.

Ruark wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote: If the law required metal detectors for just the 30.06 sign, I would bet that within a week of the law passing, you wouldn’t be able to find a 30.06 sign.

Or if liability insurance companies figured out that a big lawsuit was more likely to happen with disarmed customers and increased their liability insurance premiums, those 06 signs would disappear instantly.

This is IMHO a terrible idea and example. This "theory" assumes, there is a law abiding CHL holder in every store at every point in time which is not the case. Promoting that allowing a CHL in does not increase security 100% of the time, simply because there will never a CHL in every store all the time, and furthermore it is up to each individual CHL to act upon a given situation. We are not a security team sent in to protect stores. I'll agree the signs need to come down, so I can protect myself when I go in, and if it happens, others as well, but simply implying to put up metal detectors, instead of allowing a CHL holder in makes no sense. The whole concept of this argument would have to assume there is a CHL holder in every store all the time which isn't the case. If this law hypothetically were true and a store opted to take down their 30.06 sign instead of a metal detector, what happens when the robber goes in and their isn't anyone with a CHL holder in the store? The end result is the same irregardless, but this isn't an argument we will win in legislation.

stingeragent wrote:

Ruark wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote: If the law required metal detectors for just the 30.06 sign, I would bet that within a week of the law passing, you wouldn’t be able to find a 30.06 sign.

Or if liability insurance companies figured out that a big lawsuit was more likely to happen with disarmed customers and increased their liability insurance premiums, those 06 signs would disappear instantly.

This is IMHO a terrible idea and example. This "theory" assumes, there is a law abiding CHL holder in every store at every point in time which is not the case. Promoting that allowing a CHL in does not increase security 100% of the time, simply because there will never a CHL in every store all the time, and furthermore it is up to each individual CHL to act upon a given situation. We are not a security team sent in to protect stores. I'll agree the signs need to come down, so I can protect myself when I go in, and if it happens, others as well, but simply implying to put up metal detectors, instead of allowing a CHL holder in makes no sense. The whole concept of this argument would have to assume there is a CHL holder in every store all the time which isn't the case. If this law hypothetically were true and a store opted to take down their 30.06 sign instead of a metal detector, what happens when the robber goes in and their isn't anyone with a CHL holder in the store? The end result is the same irregardless, but this isn't an argument we will win in legislation.

Good point, Stinger. My comment was, perhaps erroneously so, based on my own self-protection. My wife has often said that if a business has an 06 sign and we go in unarmed and are killed/injured by a shooter, she will sue the snot out of them for denying us the right to self protection. You're looking at it from a broader perspective: "We are not a security team ... to protect stores." That's a little different, but is still a good point.

Ruark wrote:Good point, Stinger. My comment was, perhaps erroneously so, based on my own self-protection. My wife has often said that if a business has an 06 sign and we go in unarmed and are killed/injured by a shooter, she will sue the snot out of them for denying us the right to self protection. You're looking at it from a broader perspective: "We are not a security team ... to protect stores." That's a little different, but is still a good point.

Any lawyer worth his salt would destroy that suit in five minutes. Mrs. Ruark, did you see the 30.06 sign in the window? Isn't that the reason that your husband disarmed? Didn't he know it was illegal to enter the store with his weapon? Yet, didn't you enter the store anyway, knowing that you were disarmed and that you might be in danger?

I'm not even a lawyer and I can see that.

I haven't seen anyone OC yet in my area. But more 30;06 signs with 30;07 signs posted at places that weren't posted at all before OC (Jan 1st).
What a Goat Rope.

baldeagle wrote:So if a business didn't post 30.06 you would absolve them of all responsibility for the safety and security of their customers? Probably not, so now you have to write a law that anticipates every possibility. For example, what if a bad guy walks in to a store with a gun to rob it, a chl responds and shoots the bad guy but also hits a bystander? Does the store have any responsibility? Can they be sued for allowing carry which led to the shooting? Can they be held responsible for allowing the bad guy in the store that led to the shooting?

It quickly becomes extremely complicated to write a law that does the simple thing you claim to want to do - "persuade" store owners to allow you to carry in their store.

Let me clarify. Everyone is currently liable if they are negligent in some duty and that negligence causes harm to others. This applies to a homeowner and a business owner, and everyone else. If a property owner (home or business) does something that creates a dangerous environment and they then fail to take reasonable precautions to mitigate that danger, they are likely to be found negligent and will be subject to damages.

This is one reason why your home insurance rates will be higher if you have a trampoline, because ultimately the insurance company will be paying the judgment / settlement when one of your kid's friends breaks their arm. That payout will be larger if the safety net around the trampoline was in disrepair and you had not bothered to repair the several large holes that had been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. There is a foreseeable risk and you were negligent because you did nothing to mitigate that risk.

Another poster has already pointed out the wet floor example. If a customer slips on a wet floor and breaks their arm, the business may be liable. And if it can be shown that several other customers had pointed out the wet floor to the store owner over the course of an hour, but the owner didn't bother to put up signs or mop the floor, that store owners liability is magnified because their negligence led to the customer's injury.

I believe that creating a free fire zone on your property is more dangerous than allowing wet tile floors to stay wet. If a business owner creates this dangerous environment through the posting of signs, they should be held liable for their negligence unless they effectively mitigate that risk somehow.

baldeagle wrote:

Ruark wrote:Good point, Stinger. My comment was, perhaps erroneously so, based on my own self-protection. My wife has often said that if a business has an 06 sign and we go in unarmed and are killed/injured by a shooter, she will sue the snot out of them for denying us the right to self protection. You're looking at it from a broader perspective: "We are not a security team ... to protect stores." That's a little different, but is still a good point.

Any lawyer worth his salt would destroy that suit in five minutes. Mrs. Ruark, did you see the 30.06 sign in the window? Isn't that the reason that your husband disarmed? Didn't he know it was illegal to enter the store with his weapon? Yet, didn't you enter the store anyway, knowing that you were disarmed and that you might be in danger?

I'm not even a lawyer and I can see that.

Several people on here seem to feel that there would be a good case, but I can see your side as well.... if there's an 06 sign, you know and accept the "risk" when you enter the establishment. Interesting.