Why property owners post 30.06 or gunbusters

[austin]

A number of lawyers and law firms are waiting for the first CHL holder to be harmed in a 30.06 establishment.

Its going to be easy and BIG money.

If someone dies, then it will be a HUGE award.

[anygunanywhere]

A number of lawyers and law firms are waiting for the first CHL holder to be harmed in a 30.06 establishment.

Its going to be easy and BIG money.

If someone dies, then it will be a HUGE award.

I will lay odds it will be a hospital or mall.

Anygunanywhere

[Liberty]

This is why I think the best answer to private property postings is to make changes to the tort law. If we explicitly state that a person is responsible for any injury to a CHL that might have been prevented if he had been allowed to carry on his own, businesses would post less frequently. This is why they fight this type of law - they do not want explicit liability given to them and they can argue the liability with the law the way it is now.

Just on legal principle, I just can't see how this is possible. How can you hold a person liable for an injury that is caused by a third party that you could not be reasonably predict? It would be like suing the government because you got attacked in a post office and you couldn't defend yourself.
I think that because this topic boils down to a discussion about guns, it is hard to be logical and objective.

I am not a lawyer, but I think the reasoning is "Once you deny someone the right to protect themselves, you assume the responsibility to protect them yourself. I believe that if a CHLer were killed or injured by a criminal in a 30.06 area, and he were disarmed that the family would have a pretty good case against the posted establishment. It would be nice if the legislature and the law made this clearer.

[Oldgringo]

A number of lawyers and law firms are waiting for the first CHL holder to be harmed in a 30.06 establishment.

Its going to be easy and BIG money.

If someone dies, then it will be a HUGE award.

I will lay odds it will be a hospital or mall.

Anygunanywhere

Do I see an ambulance with an entourage of 'suits' ?

[03Lightningrocks]

I went to ToysRus in Frisco Saturday night. I noticed a new sign at the entrance. No Firearms allowed. I am sure it is due to the shootout in the California ToysRUs. Anyway...I felt much safer knowing that the criminals would not be able to go in there armed.

[Purplehood]

I actually prefer to see this sign (as another poster mentioned) when entering a store:

I've seen a lot of 'unlicensed possesion of a firearm is prohibited' signs.

[mr.72]

I think that because this topic boils down to a discussion about guns, it is hard to be logical and objective.

I think that because this topic is being discussed on the internet, it is hard to be logical and objective. Or, more accurately, because this topic is being discussed by human beings, it is hard to be logical and objective.

It makes perfect sense to sue the government if you are attacked in a post office where you were rendered unable to defend yourself, especially considering the fact that the USPS is government-protected monopoly and citizens cannot chose to use a competitor's first-class mail service if such a competitor were to allow us to go into their place of business armed.

Notice that the government paid a lot of people for their losses after 9/11, knowing full well that they were liable for the damages since the FAA makes the rules regarding how you can defend yourself on an airplane.

Now you probably can't sue Toys R Us, since you can always buy toys somewhere else where there is no "no guns" policy. So you made a choice to enter that establishment and abide by their no guns policy.

[Liberty]

Notice that the government paid a lot of people for their losses after 9/11, knowing full well that they were liable for the damages since the FAA makes the rules regarding how you can defend yourself on an airplane.

That wasn't the reasons I remember given.

[mr.72]

Notice that the government paid a lot of people for their losses after 9/11, knowing full well that they were liable for the damages since the FAA makes the rules regarding how you can defend yourself on an airplane.

That wasn't the reasons I remember given.

Of course not. But rest assured the government would not assume any liability if they didn't know that they were liable. They wanted to cut off any lawsuits by preemptively making payoffs. This keeps FAA and TSA rules out of the courts and out of the press.

[Captain Matt]

Just on legal principle, I just can't see how this is possible. How can you hold a person liable for an injury that is caused by a third party that you could not be reasonably predict?

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.

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.

I think that because this topic boils down to a discussion about guns, it is hard to be logical and objective.

That's true. Substitute gun for golf club in the first example and watch how some people irrationally change their viewpoint. Substitute licensed handgun (CHL) for licensed epinephrine syringe (RX) and watch how some people irrationally change their viewpoint.

[WildBill]

Just on legal principle, I just can't see how this is possible. How can you hold a person liable for an injury that is caused by a third party that you could not be reasonably predict?

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.

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.

I think that because this topic boils down to a discussion about guns, it is hard to be logical and objective.

That's true. Substitute gun for golf club in the first example and watch how some people irrationally change their viewpoint. Substitute licensed handgun (CHL) for licensed epinephrine syringe (RX) and watch how some people irrationally change their viewpoint.

Thanks for the examples Capt Matt. That was point that I was trying to make. Take out the emotionally-charged topic of guns out of the equation and people's thought processes can take a whole new direction.

[WildBill]

I am not a lawyer, but I think the reasoning is "Once you deny someone the right to protect themselves, you assume the responsibility to protect them yourself. I believe that if a CHLer were killed or injured by a criminal in a 30.06 area, and he were disarmed that the family would have a pretty good case against the posted establishment. It would be nice if the legislature and the law made this clearer.

I understand your reasoning, but I don't think your premise is legally valid. But IANAL, either. This may be one of the famous "law school exam questions" that could be argued either way. You know which way I would argue if I were the defendant!

[Oldgringo]

I am not a lawyer, but I think the reasoning is "Once you deny someone the right to protect themselves, you assume the responsibility to protect them yourself. I believe that if a CHLer were killed or injured by a criminal in a 30.06 area, and he were disarmed that the family would have a pretty good case against the posted establishment. It would be nice if the legislature and the law made this clearer.

I understand your reasoning, but I don't think your premise is legally valid. But IANAL, either. This may be one of the famous "law school exam questions" that could be argued either way. You know which way I would argue if I were the defendant!

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. That's what I'd argue but IANAL, so what do I know?

OTOH, the customer/patron had the choice of not entering the posted establishment where he/she should have known, by virtue of the posted sign, that he/she was entering at his/her own risk. Huh, how's that again?

If I was a betting CHL and this is a crap shoot, I'd bet on the posted establishment having to cough up some dough; however, it would depend entirely on the jury selected.

Back to square one, don't patronize posted establishments.

[mr.72]

Back to square one, don't patronize posted establishments.

Unless, of course, they are a government-protected monopoly, like the USPS, public schools, or a hospital.

[WildBill]

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.

Back to square one, don't patronize posted establishments.

Or change the law where 30.06 signs can be posted. I hope this year brings some of these changes.