[MJRW]

Do they assume responsibilty for your safety? I thought I have read this here somewhere. Can someone point me to a ruling or something?

[HankB]

I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice . . .

There was an opinion circulated, if I remember correctly, by the Texas Building Owner's and Manager's Association stating that in effect not prohibiting licensed holders of concealed handgun licenses to carry on premesis carried little or no liability for the building owner. (The STATE had, after all, licensed them.)

It was further arguable that disarming licensed CHL holders constituted a guarantee for their safety, which would arguably increase liability to the company should any harm befall the person disarmed by company policy.

I'm not aware of any established case law on this . . . if I remember correctly, this information was posted to usenet several years ago. I'd start my search in the "tx.guns" newsgroup.

[WT]

The OSHA General Duty clause states that employers are responsible for the safety of their employees. This is a federal law applicable to all non-governmental businesses. Employers who fail to protect their employees from injury, regardless of cause (except an act of war, etc.) are routinely fined. A listing of these fines is available on the OSHA website.

Businesses are also responsible for the safety of their visitors. If one goes shopping in a mall and is mugged in a parking lot, one can sue the business owner for not providing adequate protection.

[nemesis]

It was further arguable that disarming licensed CHL holders constituted a guarantee for their safety, which would arguably increase liability to the company should any harm befall the person disarmed by company policy.

Our Texas state business association agrees with that. A lengthy chapter in the manual accurately discusses all the ramifications of CHL and suggests it is wiser to allow it because the case could be made that you jeopardized safety by disarming lawfull permit holders.

[Double Naught Spy]

A company that does not allow concealed carry no more takes responsibility for your safety than one that does. There is no change in liability to you for a company that allows you to carry versus one that does not.

For example, say you have a concealed carry permit and are carrying in a business (maybe where you work) and somebody comes in and shoots up the place, including you. Just because you had a permit and gun does not mean that they are less responsibility for your safety since they allowed legally carried guns. As the gunman flees, he goes next door and shoots up the next business that doesn't allow guns carried on premises. Those who are shot up don't get any special compensation just because the company does not allow guns carried on the premises.

Simply put, whether or not you have a permit and gun and whether or not they allow carry on their premises changes nothing in their responsibility to you as an employee or customer.

I love reading about people complaining who are pissed that some place won't allow them to conceal carry even though it may be legal for them to conceal carry if it was permitted on the premises. They rant to managers or owners that the business takes full responsibility for their safety because they won't allow guns to be carried. So what! They don't allow you to wear golf shoes with spikes to walk across their floors and sure enough, they are responsible if you slip and fall, but they are no more responsible for you if they allowed wearing spiked shoes than if they didn't.

The argument that the company is somehow more liable or more responsible to you for not allowing you to carry a gun is a very naive perception. Keep in mind that if they do allow carrying of guns on the property, they are equally liable if you accidently or intentionally shoot somebody in the work place with the gun that they 'allowed' you to carry on premises.

As noted above, there are laws in place that state businesses are responsible for the protection of their employees and patrons, but in most cases, the laws pertain to 'reasonable' measures of protection. Just because you work in a carpet cleaning business does not mean the business needs to have armed guards to protect employees at work. There is little reason to assume that a business that does 95% of its business transactions over the phone or by billing would need armed protection at the place where the staff works and the equipment is stored. Basically, they don't have to do a lot to provide reasonable protection. Phones, alarms, a lighted parking lot, door locks, etc. can all be considered reasonable means of protection.

[Standing Wolf]

As far as I'm concerned, jobs are easier to replace than lives, and anyway, I'm the only person who can accept responsibility for my own safety.