Ringo
A WATCHMAN
New Bill Would Allow Gun Permit Holders to Sue if Harmed after Being Banned from Legally Carrying
Gun Permit Holders to Sue if Harmed after Being Banned from Legally Carrying
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
Quiet Observer
Member
I do not agree with making the property owner responsible for actions of anyone over which they have no control.
The sign is posted. An unarmed compliant licensed carrier gets shot in the establishment. They sue the owner.
No sign is posted. A legal or illegal carrier unjustly shoots someone. The owner is sued.
The owner is somehow responsible in both cases?
The shooter is the one to be held accountable.
The sign is posted. An unarmed compliant licensed carrier gets shot in the establishment. They sue the owner.
No sign is posted. A legal or illegal carrier unjustly shoots someone. The owner is sued.
The owner is somehow responsible in both cases?
The shooter is the one to be held accountable.
corneileous
Active member
Good. They need to be held responsible.
Last edited:
corneileous
Active member
Of which they have no control??
As far as no sign posted, I can’t necessarily comment on that. As a matter of fact, I kinda feel like it’s not the property owner’s responsibility to keep you safe but on the other hand-
For the ones that deliberately hung that sign, why shouldn’t they be? You know, just despite the belief of just staying out of somewhere that doesn’t welcome your defensive guns and just not patronizing a store that feels that way, it’s not always feasible to not go in there. At least I don’t feel that way, anyways. Sure, I’d love to avoid a store that has a no guns sign posted but like I said, it’s not always that easy depending on how well you take to being inconvenienced. So yeah, I think they should for making a public place as an unsafe environment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quiet Observer
Member
Around the country there have been proposals making business owners responsible for the actions of shooters.
Some would hold them responsible if they post and someone is shot.
Others would hold them responsible if they do not post and someone is shot.
Sign or no sign, how can they control the action of those in the store, whether it is a robber or legal CCer who mistakenly shots someone?
If a truck crashes through the door, the store is not responsible for injuries to the customers.
To be clear I think posting is a waste of time and does not improve safety, but they owner has a right to do it.
Decide on your own if you will honor it, ignore it, or go to another store.
Some would hold them responsible if they post and someone is shot.
Others would hold them responsible if they do not post and someone is shot.
Sign or no sign, how can they control the action of those in the store, whether it is a robber or legal CCer who mistakenly shots someone?
If a truck crashes through the door, the store is not responsible for injuries to the customers.
To be clear I think posting is a waste of time and does not improve safety, but they owner has a right to do it.
Decide on your own if you will honor it, ignore it, or go to another store.
corneileous
Active member
As long as it applies to store owners not taking preventive steps into ensuring guns stay out of their establishment, I think they should.
Do I waste time really breathing this much into it? Not at all because I’m still a believer of concealed means concealed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ringo
A WATCHMAN
Nuff said.
Ignominious
New member
......but you still have to take responsibility for the potential consequences.
Frasernapa
New member
I agree with what you said especially if its against the law.
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.