Oldgringo wrote:Inasmuch as Texas is a CHL state with legal choices vis-a-vis duly licensed CC on its premises, the posted establishment exercised its choice to disallow its customers/patrons the right to defend themselves. In so doing, the posted establishment assumed that responsibilty themselves.
I don't know of any legal precendent that would support this argument. I can't see how posting a 30.06 sign, in accordance with Texas State Law, would make that business assume the responsibility for the defense or safety of another person. This is a jump in "logic" that I don't understand.
That is the point and that is the argument: there is no precedent. A good criminal lawyer would tear the posted establishment a new one - thereby setting a precedent. Wait and see .
IANAL, but we have been watching past seasons of "Boston Legal" with our NetFlix subscription. (love the series and NetFlix)
Captain Matt wrote:
If someone walked into a restaurant and clubbed someone to death with a nine iron, I don't think the restuarant is responsible for the golfer's actions. I don't think the restaurant would have more liability because they didn't post a sign prohibiting golf clubs.
Actually, if the deranged golfer clubs a disarmed CHLer in a posted restaurant then the restaurant is liable, IMHO.
Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
Captain Matt wrote:
If someone walked into a restaurant and clubbed someone to death with a nine iron, I don't think the restuarant is responsible for the golfer's actions. I don't think the restaurant would have more liability because they didn't post a sign prohibiting golf clubs.
Actually, if the deranged golfer clubs a disarmed CHLer in a posted restaurant then the restaurant is liable, IMHO. Anygunanywhere
If a deranged golfer clubs an unarmed CHLer in a non-posted restaurant is the restaurant liable?
If a deranged golfer clubs an armed CHLer in a non-posted restaurant is the restaurant liable?
Captain Matt wrote:
If someone walked into a restaurant and clubbed someone to death with a nine iron, I don't think the restuarant is responsible for the golfer's actions. I don't think the restaurant would have more liability because they didn't post a sign prohibiting golf clubs.
Actually, if the deranged golfer clubs a disarmed CHLer in a posted restaurant then the restaurant is liable, IMHO. Anygunanywhere
If a deranged golfer clubs an unarmed CHLer in a non-posted restaurant is the restaurant liable?
If a deranged golfer clubs an armed CHLer in a non-posted restaurant is the restaurant liable?
No.
No.
The restaurant did not prevent the CHLer from not defending himself because the premises was not posted.
If anyone is killed or injured in any gun free defenseless victim zone then the individuals/organizations/corporations/goverrnment are liable.
Actions have consequences, I don't care what perceived right you act under. Wrong is wrong.
Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
This may sound strange and off the wall, but I think that whoever came up with the idea of the 30.06 sign should be commended. Putting up an enforceable 30.06 sign requires that the poster at least do some research and have some understanding of the concealed carry laws.
Can you imagine how bad it would be if gunbuster signs were legally binding? Any fool could slap up any old decal or handwritten sign that could ban carry by CHLers or any other person. What a mess that would be.
If some chump with a golf club can take you out, you deserve to be dead. Geeze...some of these posts just get plumb silly. One on one, learn to defend yourselves. Everything at your table is a weapon...all of which can kill a chump with a golf club. Quit relying on a handgun to make you a man. If you were a weeny before you got the CHL, you will still be a weeny after you get your CHL.
03Lightningrocks wrote:If some chump with a golf club can take you out, you deserve to be dead.
Lots of well-trained people have been taken down with a lot less than a golf club. All it takes is some mitigating circumstance, and a twelve year old with a sharp pencil could take you down.
03Lightningrocks wrote:If some chump with a golf club can take you out, you deserve to be dead. Geeze...some of these posts just get plumb silly. One on one, learn to defend yourselves. Everything at your table is a weapon...all of which can kill a chump with a golf club. Quit relying on a handgun to make you a man. If you were a weeny before you got the CHL, you will still be a weeny after you get your CHL.
03Lightningrocks wrote:If some chump with a golf club can take you out, you deserve to be dead. Geeze...some of these posts just get plumb silly. One on one, learn to defend yourselves. Everything at your table is a weapon...all of which can kill a chump with a golf club. Quit relying on a handgun to make you a man. If you were a weeny before you got the CHL, you will still be a weeny after you get your CHL.
Do general statements like this keep you loaded up with friends?
Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
WildBill wrote:Can you imagine how bad it would be if gunbuster signs were legally binding? Any fool could slap up any old decal or handwritten sign that could ban carry by CHLers or any other person. What a mess that would be.
Doesn't Oklahoma consider generic gunbuster signs as binding? If so, then
I have to be in OK City for the first week in March. I've starting looking into Oklahoma concealed carry law. At least we do have reciprocity with them.
03Lightningrocks wrote:If some chump with a golf club can take you out, you deserve to be dead. Geeze...some of these posts just get plumb silly. One on one, learn to defend yourselves. Everything at your table is a weapon...all of which can kill a chump with a golf club. Quit relying on a handgun to make you a man. If you were a weeny before you got the CHL, you will still be a weeny after you get your CHL.
I want to grow up to be a man.
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
03Lightningrocks wrote:If some chump with a golf club can take you out, you deserve to be dead.
Do you think Gordon Hale should have gotten the death penalty for shooting his unarmed attacker?
What about battered spouses? Do you think they deserve to die if they're beaten with a golf club?
Like I said...these threads get plumb silly sometimes. I shouldn't even answer stupid questions like this, but I will go ahead this once. Of coarse I don't think any woman deserves beaten. Lighten up...good night nurse.
03Lightningrocks wrote:If some chump with a golf club can take you out, you deserve to be dead. Geeze...some of these posts just get plumb silly. One on one, learn to defend yourselves. Everything at your table is a weapon...all of which can kill a chump with a golf club. Quit relying on a handgun to make you a man. If you were a weeny before you got the CHL, you will still be a weeny after you get your CHL.
Do general statements like this keep you loaded up with friends?
Anygunanywhere
Plenty of friends, they just aren't paranoid. So I am good.
That is the point and that is the argument: there is no precedent. A good criminal lawyer would tear the posted establishment a new one - thereby setting a precedent. Wait and see 
.
