TexasCHLforum.com

In my time lurking here, I've seen several discussions about the impact of 30.06 signs on businesses. In fact, just last night, my state representative, Gene Wu, announced he was giving away free 30.06 and 30.07 signs. (Yes, he lost my vote right there.)

I would have loved to have fired back, "And are you giving free insurance to cover the lawsuits?" In this case , I'm referring to lawsuits where a store had a 30.06 (or equivalent), a LTC holder left his (or her) gun in their car, something violent happened and the store got sued for inadequate security or similar.

But I don't know of any, especially with any details. I remember one user posted about a grocery store in Dallas, but 0 details beyond that. I know most cases will be settled out of court. Does anyone know of any cases with details we can all use to point out extra liability to said posters?

I haven't heard of any lawsuits based on an LTC holder being unable to defend themselves due to signage. I think the threat of a lawsuit under such circumstances would have minimal impact upon a businesse's decision regarding posting signs simply due to numbers. With less that 4% of the population possessing an LTC, and the odds of anyone in that group being on premise during some type of attack, the possibility of a lawsuit as a result is almost infinitesimal.

rssecurity wrote:In my time lurking here, I've seen several discussions about the impact of 30.06 signs on businesses. In fact, just last night, my state representative, Gene Wu, announced he was giving away free 30.06 and 30.07 signs. (Yes, he lost my vote right there.)

I would have loved to have fired back, "And are you giving free insurance to cover the lawsuits?" In this case , I'm referring to lawsuits where a store had a 30.06 (or equivalent), a LTC holder left his (or her) gun in their car, something violent happened and the store got sued for inadequate security or similar.

But I don't know of any, especially with any details. I remember one user posted about a grocery store in Dallas, but 0 details beyond that. I know most cases will be settled out of court. Does anyone know of any cases with details we can all use to point out extra liability to said posters?

So ANOTHER legislator is doing it. That's appalling.

I think the threat of a lawsuit under such circumstances would have minimal impact upon a businesse's decision regarding posting signs simply due to numbers.

Who says the business will do their research? By posting the signs, they've already proven they act out of fear, rather than logic. Why else would they risk driving away the most law abiding group of citizens there is? You know, the ones with a 600% lower conviction rate than cops, and that doesn't take into consideration the two big advantages the cops have.

With the credible threat of such lawsuits, we could instill fear of putting up a 30.06 (and 30.07).

Then there is the legal precedent a winning lawsuit would set...

rssecurity wrote:

I think the threat of a lawsuit under such circumstances would have minimal impact upon a businesse's decision regarding posting signs simply due to numbers.

Who says the business will do their research? By posting the signs, they've already proven they act out of fear, rather than logic. Why else would they risk driving away the most law abiding group of citizens there is? You know, the ones with a 600% lower conviction rate than cops, and that doesn't take into consideration the two big advantages the cops have.

With the credible threat of such lawsuits, we could instill fear of putting up a 30.06 (and 30.07).

Then there is the legal precedent a winning lawsuit would set...

I agree, however it'sgoing to take a combination of things for that first lawsuit to occur, first legal 30.06 signage, second, a LTC holder who disarmed because of the signage, third a violent attack causing injury or death to said LTC holder. And while most business owners may post the signs out of ignorance or based on misinformation, I don't believe that the odds are in our favor, threatening potential lawsuits based on the chance of all of those factors being present simultaneously.

I doubt such a lawsuit would get much traction in the courts. Somehow you would have to show gross negligence on the part of the store. Following provisions specifically outlined in the law (posting 30.06) isn't going to ever meet that criteria.
Until a law is passed stating that a business assumes additional liability by posting (something TN is considering), stores have little to fear in the courts.

Tennessee is contemplating holding businesses that post for the safety of disarmed customers.

rssecurity wrote:

I think the threat of a lawsuit under such circumstances would have minimal impact upon a businesse's decision regarding posting signs simply due to numbers.

Who says the business will do their research? By posting the signs, they've already proven they act out of fear, rather than logic. Why else would they risk driving away the most law abiding group of citizens there is? You know, the ones with a 600% lower conviction rate than cops, and that doesn't take into consideration the two big advantages the cops have.

With the credible threat of such lawsuits, we could instill fear of putting up a 30.06 (and 30.07).

Then there is the legal precedent a winning lawsuit would set...

Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. Establishing a precedent of holding one party liable for the actions of another party would open the door for gun grabbers & other leftists to be able to sue gun and ammo manufacturers out of business. It's bad enough that makers already have to defend against such attacks using the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Just think how bad it would get if the protections offered by PLCA were gutted by a law holding business liable for criminals' activities or by precedent from a lawsuit doing the same.

Not that new ways of looking at things are unknown, but there is a huge issue of causation in the scenario you posit. An illegal act ordinarily is a break in the chain of causation between a defendant and plaintiff. IOW, to recover, one must show that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the duty was breached and that breach was the proximate cause of the injury.

txbirddog wrote:Tennessee is contemplating holding businesses that post for the safety of disarmed customers.

IMO, that statement has been oversimplified.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81929&p=1045316&hil ... e#p1045316

...one must show that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the duty was breached and that breach was the proximate cause of the injury.

IANAL, but I could argue that by posting the 30.06, and forcing me to disarm, they assumed a duty for my protection, a duty they failed at (since we got to the lawsuit stage). By posting, the store made an implied warranty that it was safe, and I didn't need my gun, and they would protect me.

I'm sure a real lawyer could say it even better.

rssecurity wrote:

...one must show that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the duty was breached and that breach was the proximate cause of the injury.

IANAL, but I could argue that by posting the 30.06, and forcing me to disarm, they assumed a duty for my protection, a duty they failed at (since we got to the lawsuit stage). By posting, the store made an implied warranty that it was safe, and I didn't need my gun, and they would protect me.

I'm sure a real lawyer could say it even better.

You could also argue that the world is flat but that doesn't make it so. The law clearly provides a path for private property owners to restrict firearms on their property. It does so without attaching the strings you are trying to connect. As long as the property owner is following the path laid out by the legislature they are standing on very solid legal ground.
I also disagree that a property owner posting 30.06 is an implied warranty of safety - if anything they are stating their belief that you bringing a firearm into their property creates an unsafe environment. Until the legislature says that posting 30.06 places more liability on the shoulders of the property owner, this argument is moot.