Unintended consequences of 30.06 posting

[donniet]

This from another forum.

Bouchard said gun rights advocates are watching Wisconsin, which recently passed a concealed-carry permit law effective Nov. 1 and how businesses there respond to the signage issue.

He said insurance companies have raised a liability issue that is persuading some businesses against posting the no firearms allowed signs.

According to the Professional Insurance Agents of Wisconsin, a business owner is not liable under state law if concealed weapons are allowed and an employee’s firearm accidentally discharges and injures a customer.

But the business owner is not immune from liability if the business bans concealed weapons and the same situation occurs. In that case the business could be sued for negligence for failing to enforce its own policy.

Read more: http://trib.com/news/local/govt-and-pol ... z1iGKCRkja" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I realize this is Wisconsin, however could the same point be used in Texas. Example: gun shows posting a 30.06 thus creating expectation of a safe environment. ND causes an injury? Might the injured party have grounds for a suit? Especially if the 30.06 was posted and enforced at a venue where it had no legal standing such as City owned property?

Just wondering.

[Thomas]

If I read that correctly, sounds good to me! I think victims (or families) of school shootings should sue the state for depriving them their right of self-protection.

[tbrown]

It would have been nice if they slipped something like that into the parking lot bill. Explicitly say businesses that prohibit guns are not immune from liability if they fail to guarantee a gun free zone, and don't limit that clause to parking lots.