Why property owners post 30.06 or gunbusters

[mr.72]

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.

Carelessly?

If I am understanding you correctly, you are trying to make an analogy that for you to break the law while driving your car, then someone you injure could hold the state responsible because the state gave you the license. This does not pass the test of logic. Your driver's license does not give you the license to break the law. If you drive "carelessly" but do not break the law then you will not be held liable. There are almost no circumstances by which you could be fully within the law and also cause an accident while driving. But a 30.06 sign is unrestricted for a hospital. They do not have to meet any requirement when they post it, there are no laws governing it. They just post it, and that's it. Viola, they have made it illegal to carry on their premises.

Now, if I may bend your analogy so that it would make logical sense... if a police officer breaks the law while driving and on the job and injures someone, then yes, the government can and will be held liable for his actions since they have endorsed his breaking of the normal rules of driving in execution of his duties. Likewise the State, which gives authority to private property owners to disarm citizens, should be held liable when private property owners exercise this authority and it results in damages to someone.

[Oldgringo]

I am not an authority on much of anything, certainly not CHL liability laws or the workings of the courts.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but it is my undestanding that the State of Texas enjoys the protection of "Sovereign Immunity". In a nutshell, "Sovereign Immunity" means that the State of Texas can not be sued unless it gives its permission to be sued. Absent that permission to be sued from the State, wouldn't the next set of deep pockets be the entity which chose to disallow, whether by sign or voice, duly licensed CC on its premises?

Next?