New legislation!

[thequintessentialman]

This has come up before and maybe beat to death but what we need in Texas (and as a model for other states to follow) is legislation absolving business, property owners, etc from any responsibility and/or liability from actions involving firearms by LTC on their premises. The liability should be the LTC holder and no one else. At the same time, make business liable for violence on their premises if they do actively choose to placard 30.06 and fail to take reasonable actions such as armed guards, screening stations, and/or implement programs like school districts where certain individuals are vetted and trained. It's a well established fact that gun free zones create nothing but target rich environments while mitigating risk to the criminal. I don't know the law but would wager in the mind of the CEO and Directors, the risk of litigation from negligent discharge (or other) is greater than the cost of simply posting a sign.

So basically, just telling businesses they have no liability when allowing legal concealed carry and they are taking full responsibility if they choose to infringe.

Thought, concerns, comments...?

 

[Southpaw]

I believe there is a bill along these lines minus the penalty on business owners who post.

 

[txinvestigator]

This has come up before and maybe beat to death but what we need in Texas (and as a model for other states to follow) is legislation absolving business, property owners, etc from any responsibility and/or liability from actions involving firearms by LTC on their premises. The liability should be the LTC holder and no one else. At the same time, make business liable for violence on their premises if they do actively choose to placard 30.06 and fail to take reasonable actions such as armed guards, screening stations, and/or implement programs like school districts where certain individuals are vetted and trained. It's a well established fact that gun free zones create nothing but target rich environments while mitigating risk to the criminal. I don't know the law but would wager in the mind of the CEO and Directors, the risk of litigation from negligent discharge (or other) is greater than the cost of simply posting a sign.

So basically, just telling businesses they have no liability when allowing legal concealed carry and they are taking full responsibility if they choose to infringe.

Thought, concerns, comments...?

No. Perhaps for places like hospitals and the like, but not for businesses where you don't have to go. Just no.

 

[thequintessentialman]

No. Perhaps for places like hospitals and the like, but not for businesses where you don't have to go. Just no.

Respectfully, could you state your argument against this? I'm not talking about slip and fall from loose floor tiles or leaks so old that moss is growing, I'm talking about relieving businesses from frivolous litigation by money grubbing attorneys because of the actions of idiots they have no control over... if allowing people to carry, a right the BoR protects (whole different discussion), limits their liability then what is there to loose?

 

[toddnjoyce]

HB516. Scheduled for hearing.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB516

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to the liability of a person who allows handguns to be carried on property owned, leased, or managed by the person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Title 4, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Chapter 95A to read as follows:
CHAPTER 95A. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO ALLOW HANDGUNS
Sec. 95A.001. DEFINITION. In this chapter, "license holder" means a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter
H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or a person with a license to carry a handgun issued by another state and recognized in this state.
Sec. 95A.002. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO ALLOW HANDGUNS. There is no cause of action against an owner, lessee, or manager of property based on the owner's, lessee's, or manager's decision not to exercise the option to forbid the carrying of handguns by a license holder on the property by providing notice under Sections 30.06 and 30.07, Penal Code.

 

[thequintessentialman]

HB516. Scheduled for hearing.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB516

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to the liability of a person who allows handguns to be carried on property owned, leased, or managed by the person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Title 4, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Chapter 95A to read as follows:
CHAPTER 95A. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO ALLOW HANDGUNS
Sec. 95A.001. DEFINITION. In this chapter, "license holder" means a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter
H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or a person with a license to carry a handgun issued by another state and recognized in this state.
Sec. 95A.002. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO ALLOW HANDGUNS. There is no cause of action against an owner, lessee, or manager of property based on the owner's, lessee's, or manager's decision not to exercise the option to forbid the carrying of handguns by a license holder on the property by providing notice under Sections 30.06 and 30.07, Penal Code.

Good information, thanks

Tenn (I believe) attempted to pass similar legislation but the forces of tyranny emasculated the bill before the vote rendering it less than usless. Now we all need to write our respective state legislators.

... better yet, does the Chamber of Commerce know about this? Big business backing it is even better than citizen action since big deep pockets speak loudest.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I believe he is meaning, if you don't feel safe going someplace posted, then don't go.

Hospitals and the likes are different .

 

[jordanmills]

No. Perhaps for places like hospitals and the like, but not for businesses where you don't have to go. Just no.

Who defines where you have to go? Do you have to skip the only hospital within fifty miles to go to another one that doesn't run a more dangerous environment? What about the only grocery store within fifty miles?

 

[SC-Texas]

I've been saying this for years

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[popper]

So basically, just telling businesses they have no liability when allowing legal concealed carry and they are taking full responsibility if they choose to infringe.
That is good so the lawyers can't cause NO carry in stores by monetary threat. I thought there was a bill last time to limit liability of gun sellers like Academy - still being sued for legally selling a rifle?