TexasCHLforum.com

OK, last warning. Play nice and get back on topic or the thread will be locked.

Getting back on Topic...regardless of the reason for an establishment posting, you don't have to go in them if you don't like the rules. I don't see how it makes the establishment responsible for your safety.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Getting back on Topic...regardless of the reason for an establishment posting, you don't have to go in them if you don't like the rules. I don't see how it makes the establishment responsible for your safety.

What about those 30.06 posted locales that you absolutely have to go into, and patronizing or not is simply not an option? They have stripped you of the ability to protect yourself.

Purplehood wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Getting back on Topic...regardless of the reason for an establishment posting, you don't have to go in them if you don't like the rules. I don't see how it makes the establishment responsible for your safety.

What about those 30.06 posted locales that you absolutely have to go into, and patronizing or not is simply not an option? They have stripped you of the ability to protect yourself.

Maybe that's where some of us differ. I really don't see it as stripping me of the right to protect myself. I see it as taking away one of my options for protecting myself. I don't like the posting of an establishment any more than anyone else here. I am guessing when you say places one has to go into, your talking about courts and such. Maybe post offices? If you are, I still don't see how they can be held financially liable for you being the victim of a nut job with a ball bat or golf club.

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Maybe that's where some of us differ. I really don't see it as stripping me of the right to protect myself. I see it as taking away one of my options for protecting myself. I don't like the posting of an establishment any more than anyone else here. I am guessing when you say places one has to go into, your talking about courts and such. Maybe post offices? If you are, I still don't see how they can be held financially liable for you being the victim of a nut job with a ball bat or golf club.

Yes, 03lightningrocks, some people are different from (than?) you.

Based on my acute observation abilities, hospitals are the big 30.06 offenders in Texas behind government entities. It really does not matter what location is posted. They don't remove anyone of their right to defend themselves, they remove the ability for some people to defend themselves adequately. Everyone cannot defend themselves as well as some people and firearms are an adequate disparity of force eliminator.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Maybe that's where some of us differ. I really don't see it as stripping me of the right to protect myself. I see it as taking away one of my options for protecting myself. I don't like the posting of an establishment any more than anyone else here. I am guessing when you say places one has to go into, your talking about courts and such. Maybe post offices? If you are, I still don't see how they can be held financially liable for you being the victim of a nut job with a ball bat or golf club.

Yes, 03lightningrocks, some people are different from (than?) you.

Based on my acute observation abilities, hospitals are the big 30.06 offenders in Texas behind government entities. It really does not matter what location is posted. They don't remove anyone of their right to defend themselves, they remove the ability for some people to defend themselves adequately. Everyone cannot defend themselves as well as some people and firearms are an adequate disparity of force eliminator.

Anygunanywhere

That's exactly right.

However I would say, the hospital in this case is not taking away your right to defend yourself, or your ability, but the means of effective self-defense. This is splitting hairs, I know. But to further split hairs, I really don't think the hospital is even taking away the means for your effective self defense, but it is the State which is criminalizing your effective self-defense, and the hospital or other entity is simply behaving under the law.

You can enter these places and remain armed, but you are trespassing when you do so. Quite frankly, I don't think the business should be held liable. The State of Texas should be liable if you are lawfully disarmed and then come under an attack that might have necessitated use of arms.

Now, if the State did not endorse the preferences of property owners by making such preferences maintain the force of law, then the business or property owner would be liable. In other words, if there were no stipulations about signage legal or not for barring CHL holders from carrying a gun into private property, then the business or property owner's policy would prevail and they would become liable if someone complied with their policy and then they were attacked.

I'll say it again.

Captain Matt wrote:If a bee flew into the restaurant and stung someone who was highly allergic, it may not be reasonable to hold the restaurant responsible for the bee sting. However, if the restaurant prohibited the person from carrying an epinephrine syringe, and the person died from the bee sting, I think it's reasonable to hold the restaurant responsible for their actions which contributed to the death.

Now substitute licensed handgun (CHL) for licensed epinephrine syringe (RX) in the example.

If 03lightningrocks thinks using a epinephrine syringe for a bee sting is wimpy he can start a new discussion for that instead of hijacking this discussion again.

mr.72 wrote:
That's exactly right.

However I would say, the hospital in this case is not taking away your right to defend yourself, or your ability, but the means of effective self-defense. This is splitting hairs, I know. But to further split hairs, I really don't think the hospital is even taking away the means for your effective self defense, but it is the State which is criminalizing your effective self-defense, and the hospital or other entity is simply behaving under the law.

You can enter these places and remain armed, but you are trespassing when you do so. Quite frankly, I don't think the business should be held liable. The State of Texas should be liable if you are lawfully disarmed and then come under an attack that might have necessitated use of arms.

Now, if the State did not endorse the preferences of property owners by making such preferences maintain the force of law, then the business or property owner would be liable. In other words, if there were no stipulations about signage legal or not for barring CHL holders from carrying a gun into private property, then the business or property owner's policy would prevail and they would become liable if someone complied with their policy and then they were attacked.

The hospital makes the conscious decision to deny lawful carry of firearms. Again, actions have consequences. Just because the state provides the means to do so does not mean the business must do so.

If the state mandates that the business must post the sign as a normal function of operating the business in the same manner as fire extinguishers or sprinkler systems or handicap ramps then the business would have an excuse.

Prohibiting lawful carry by lawful citizens can never be justified for any reason based on preventing criminal acts.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote: The hospital makes the conscious decision to deny lawful carry of firearms. Again, actions have consequences. Just because the state provides the means to do so does not mean the business must do so.
...
Prohibiting lawful carry by lawful citizens can never be justified for any reason based on preventing criminal acts.

Anygunanywhere

I agree with you, but I think the fight is not with the hospital, or whatever business posts this. The fight is with the State, which makes it a criminal offense to enter the premises if it is posted.

I don't think the decision to use the force of law to deny the lawful carry of firearms should be available to any private business or property. They can enforce their own policies however they see fit, but it is a whole new matter when it takes on the force of law.

So if the hospital wants to deny service to anyone who is carrying a gun, then that is their right. If a restaurant decides that if they discover you have a gun, they are going to throw you out of the restaurant, then so be it. But when the penalty for not complying with the preferences of these businesses becomes a criminal offense, then the argument is between you and the state.

That's my opinion anyway. I understand where you are coming from and I think I could almost agree, but I think there is a better way to solve the problem than having to appeal to individual businesses or find some way to sue an individual business.

By the way, if the hospital were to deny you the opportunity to lawfully carry a firearm and then you suffered damages as a result, then I think you should sue the hospital. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. But it is hard to make this case when the State has endorsed the action of the hospital. It'd be kind of like me saying that a restaurant, requiring me to pay for my meal, has denied me my right to eat. Certainly they have not, because it would be illegal for me to eat the restaurant's food and then not pay for it.

Nice post, Mr.72. I understand your point.

Thank you.

Anygunanywhere

Since we have varying and robust opinions on the subject of Texas 30.06 and the various responsibilities/liabilities associated therewith, we now need a precedent.

Volunteers...anybody?

I don't think the opinions matter, because 30.06 sign has the force of law. So it is not a civil liability issue, you were lawfully disarmed by virtue of the 30.06 sign. It's cut and dried.

mr.72 wrote:I don't think the opinions matter

Unless they're on the civil jury.

mr.72 wrote:But it is hard to make this case when the State has endorsed the action of the hospital.

The state has endorsed my driving and my concealed carry, but I don't think I'd get too far with trying to foist the blame on DPS if I did either carelessly.

tarkus wrote:

mr.72 wrote:I don't think the opinions matter

Unless they're on the civil jury.

WINNER! Give the man a cigar!