TexasCHLforum.com

Hi, I'm looking for support for an amazing new bill. Last session the bill that would mandate employers allow CHl holders to leave their guns in the car got shot down by "property rights" types. And I support that position for the most part, BUT here is another slant on the issue.

http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

The basic premise is that a "NO GUNS HERE" policy makes the place EXPLICITLY responsible for everyone's safety. Under such a law, the mall in Omaha where the lunatic shot those people would be liable. The point is that no "public accomodation" would be able to afford insurance for such a policy and would HAVE to allow legal guns.

What does everyone think?

There's already a thread on this.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... hp?t=12011

I believe if thy have a gun free zone and somebody gets shot they should be liable for failure to enforce their gun free zone,if i was a survivor in omaha i would be looking into a lawsuit against the mall

I have mixed feelings on this.

If I own property, I should be able to control if you carry a gun or not. If I post no carry signs, then you KNOW the risk and assume it.

The biggest problem I have with "property owners" making decisions about my safety is that if I was to go to work at a company that didn't allow me to have a gun in my car, that means I'd have to travel to and from the office unarmed. No thanks.

txinvestigator wrote: I have mixed feelings on this.

If I own property, I should be able to control if you carry a gun or not.

And you surely can. All you have to do is exert actual physical control over who is allowed to enter, and with what. That means guards, metal detectors, wands, bag searches, x-ray machines, etc. If you performed with due diligence, there would (or should) be little or no liability.

What this proposal would inhibit is property owners pretending to exert control over who carries guns on their property by means of posting an ineffectual sign and doing little or nothing else.

txinvestigator wrote: If I post no carry signs, then you KNOW the risk and assume it.

Maybe not. Maybe I get tricked (by the sign) into thinking it is actually safe on your property, when in reality any BG bent on doing a shooting spree will simply ignore the sign and blaze away.

If you posted a sign that included a disclaimer warning people that spree killers could be expected to ignore it, that would cover you. But it would kind of defeat the purpose, right? (To say nothing of how it would make the truth stand out in sharp relief.)

txinvestigator wrote:I have mixed feelings on this.

If I own property, I should be able to control if you carry a gun or not. If I post no carry signs, then you KNOW the risk and assume it.

Am I understanding correctly that 30.05 says I can't force a person off my property solely for carrying a gun if they are carrying under the authority of their CHL?

txinvestigator wrote:I have mixed feelings on this.

If I own property, I should be able to control if you carry a gun or not. If I post no carry signs, then you KNOW the risk and assume it.

Private, residential properties are one thing. Businesses open to the public are another.

Agreed. Also if anybody who walks may carry, there's no good reason to stop employees from carrying.

Venus Pax wrote: Private, residential properties are one thing. Businesses open to the public are another.