Quantcast
What Happens? - Page 2 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 11, 2014, 12:54 PM   #26
HankB
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 29, 2003
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 4,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9mmfan

Quote:
If something were to happen in their parking lot or even store and a person were to defend themselves with their weapon is there recourse?
Don't know exactly, don't care to find out. Seems like it is entirely possible you could still be charged with trespass by a holder of license to carry concealed handgun.
Don't know about other states, but under TX law, parking lots are not the "premises" of a retail store or restaurant, so a PC30.06 sign prohibiting concealed carry on the premesis would not affect you in the parking lot. (see Texas Penal Code, section 46.035 (f) (3): "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.)
__________________
Pay attention - the inmates really are running the asylum.
HankB is offline  
Old July 11, 2014, 01:16 PM   #27
mljdeckard
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 5, 2006
Location: In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
Posts: 12,538
I would also imagine, a lot of it would be determined by whether or not the business is locally owned, or if it's under a large corporation. A local owner would likely be happy or upset depending on the outcome. If you save the day, you're a hero. If you hurt someone you weren't supposed to, they won't be happy. But if it's a large corporation, their counsel/legal department will look at it from the point of view of their legal exposure and their obligation to limit it, and they may well feel that to limit their liability, they need to take steps to distance themselves from the event, and throw as much responsibility as possible back onto YOU. This would mean asserting their policies to be able to show you were acting on your own, and they had nothing to do with it.

A local guy could certainly do the same thing, but in my experience, the only places with anti-gun policies are under corporate orders to enforce them. If you ask the local manager or franchise owner, they don't like the policy and would drop it if they could.
__________________
"I'm not saying we should kill all the stupid people. I'm just saying that we should remove all the warning labels and let the problem work itself out."
mljdeckard is offline  
Old July 11, 2014, 01:42 PM   #28
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 1,937
Post #26, buildings vs "public" property...

Post #26 is interesting.
Id consider a parking lot, land(grass-yard), sidewalks, etc as legally part of a property.
It's interesting that Texas only applies the statue to the building or structure itself.
I can see valid arguments on both sides(CCW license holder/gun owner & business owner/employee/security staff).

I think a big part of the issue too is what is considered private property & how the statues or ordinances are enforced.
Doing security work, I've had people fly into a rage thinking they were on public property or that they could do whatever they wanted. Wrong!
A security officer I worked with who'd worked as a police officer in MA told me that the public law there stated a business or property that had a lot/open access to public streets, alleys, sidewalks, etc was not private property & couldn't enforce any rules/SOPs/regulations.
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is offline  
Old July 11, 2014, 01:46 PM   #29
9mmfan
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 28, 2011
Location: Weatherford, The Great State of Texas
Posts: 418
Quote:
Don't know about other states, but under TX law, parking lots are not the "premises" of a retail store or restaurant, so a PC30.06 sign prohibiting concealed carry on the premesis would not affect you in the parking lot. (see Texas Penal Code, section 46.035 (f) (3): "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking
Yessir, you are correct.

I was being broad as I couldn't remember the current status on posted parking lots, rare as they may be. I believe employers are not allowed to restrict employees from possessing weapons in their privately owned vehicles in all but a few very specific instances, but was fuzzy on general public parking for retail and whatnot.

I've never seen a posted lot, and in fact have seen only a couple three valid signs on buildings, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there.

Thanks for the clarification.

Quote:
Id consider a parking lot, land(grass-yard), sidewalks, etc as legally part of a property.
It's interesting that Texas only applies the statue to the building or structure itself.
Yeppers, Texas law does differentiate between "property" and "premises."

Premises are defined as a building or portion of a building, and specifically precludes "public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area." This is from Texas Penal Code 46.035 "UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER."
How this applies to unlicensed vehicle carry under the so called "Motorist Protection Act" that was passed a few years ago, I am uncertain. I'm not going into the whole Federal GFSZA at this point, I'm getting long winded enough here as it is.

Yes, parking lots are still private, as opposed to public, property and you can likely be asked to leave those as well. But it doesn't seem like you would be automatically committing a crime, as opposed to a validly posted building. Again, I am no lawyer and don't pretend to be. This information could likely be found under the general penal code for trespassing.

I'm posting from my phone, which makes these lengthy entries take much longer than they should, so I'm going to cop out on doing the research right now.

Think of it as a lazy man's "give a man a fish" type situation.
__________________
A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition
-Rudyard Kipling

Last edited by 9mmfan; July 11, 2014 at 02:11 PM.
9mmfan is online now  
Old July 13, 2014, 01:13 PM   #30
we are not amused
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Smallvile, Kansas
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hso View Post

You would get nothing from any court if you claimed they'd denied you the ability to defend yourself since they can't be liable for the acts of a criminal (think about banks and the fact that the customers have no recourse against them if a criminal acts). Same goes for the property outside since they're not responsible for the safety of customers unless they take on that responsibility.
.
Actually, you are quite wrong. Businesses are quite often sued for failure to protect their customers, for example the recent decision against the Dodgers for the beating of a drunk fan in a parking lot after the game. I also remember a lawsuit against a local grocery chain, in which a customer was injured in a robbery gone bad in the parking lot. In both cases, the jury found the defendants guilty of not having enough security, although they never bothered to specify how much was enough.
You may not be able to "enhance" the settlement by claiming they disarmed you, but I wouldn't bet against it with the right case and lawyers.

While the law might vary somewhat from State to State, I rather suspect that all States allow somebody to sue for injuries sustained on someone else's property, whether it be private or commercial. Certainly most of them do, and some States get pretty creative about how you can be held liable for the actions of a third party. I know of many suits against property owners by the families of people who died or were injured while trespassing on private property. No trespassing signs are not generally enough of a defense in all cases.

That is why anyone with property has a liability insurance, and why it isn't getting cheaper.
__________________
I believe in gun control, Every Citizen should control at least one gun.
we are not amused is offline  
Old July 13, 2014, 01:31 PM   #31
JohnKSa
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 1, 2003
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 10,152
Quote:
...a restaurant that wants no weapons in their store...
In TX, there are only three ways that the business can make their wishes known that carry any legal weight.

1. They can hand you a card or other written material stating that firearms are prohibited.
2. They can tell you orally, to your face, that firearms are prohibited.
3. They can post a proper 30.06 sign.

What they "want" means nothing from a legal standpoint if they don't take one of the three steps above.
Quote:
If something were to happen in their parking lot or even store and a person were to defend themselves with their weapon is there recourse?
In TX, (assuming you actually did have to defend yourself and your defense was found to be justified) you may be able to mount an affirmative defense that although the weapon was prohibited, you clearly needed to have it to save your life. You would need to talk to a lawyer who specializes in such things to get a real answer.
Quote:
Who are they to say I cannot take measures to defend myself when they offer nothing in terms of protection?
1. Assuming they prohibit firearms, they still aren't telling you you can't take measures to defend yourself. They're only telling you that you can't have a firearm. There are many other ways to defend yourself, albeit perhaps less effective.
2. You don't have to go on their property if you don't like the prohibition.
3. The law doesn't place any burden on them to protect you while you're on their property past what is normal, ordinary care. e.g. They can't have hazardous conditions, their property/buildings must meet code, they can't have negligently created a dangerous situation.
4. They own the property and the law protects their right to limit access to it as they see fit, and within the bounds of the law. Right now, that includes being able to prohibit firearms if they wish to do so.
Quote:
I've never seen a posted lot...
I have seen one, but the owner took down the sign after the situation was explained to him. Namely that the sign allowed him to prohibit persons with permits but had no effect whatsoever on persons legally carrying in their vehicles without a permit.
__________________
Did you know there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old July 13, 2014, 01:33 PM   #32
we are not amused
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Smallvile, Kansas
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankB View Post
Don't know about other states, but under TX law, parking lots are not the "premises" of a retail store or restaurant, so a PC30.06 sign prohibiting concealed carry on the premesis would not affect you in the parking lot. (see Texas Penal Code, section 46.035 (f) (3): "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.)
Parking lots are an interesting problem.

I remember that many businesses tried to prohibit guns from parking lots, and tried to claim private property rights, and that it was none of the Governments right to say otherwise, but yet those same parking lots were required by the government to provide handicapped parking, it was done without protest, even when it didn't make sense. For example, my company requires us to go through one of those revolving gates that requires a pass card to enter. No way a wheel chair is going to fit. Yet it is required by law to have a certain number of wheel chair accommodating handicapped parking lot slots(van accessible). When I pointed out the stupidity of such, I was informed that it was a matter of law, and they had to provide those despite the fact they were useless for the use of employees9or anybody else), even assuming we had employee's that required a wheelchair. (we do, but they work in a different part of the plant, and use a different access)

The argument has always seemed to be more about how we can interfere with gun rights more than how we can honor private property rights.
__________________
I believe in gun control, Every Citizen should control at least one gun.
we are not amused is offline  
Old July 13, 2014, 05:44 PM   #33
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 1,937
Points....

I read over a few recent posts & wanted to share some input....

I agree that private businesses or owners can be held accountable or be liable(civil actions) for the lack of security, violent crime, thefts, etc. I know of a few high profile cases in my metro areas where a business or owner was sued over a violent crime. One incident involved a young woman who worked at a used car lot. Some psycho kidnapped her at work, restrained her, put the victim in his trunk then raped & murdered her later.
The woman's family sued the car lot owners for wrongful death/poor security.
Another event happened in my area about 4 years ago. A young couple(husband/wife) went to a late night movie over the Thanksgiving holiday. The husband(active duty USMC) was a combat veteran & home from a deployment overseas. The couple was robbed at gunpoint by 2 armed thugs.
They filed a civil action against the theater chain because the business had no security staff or off duty LE officers doing security work.
I am aware of a retired US Secret Service agent who does civil cases. He goes to court often to explain improper security measures or security/safety flaws.
Here is the site; www.LaSorsa.com .
Id add that my state changed the statues/labor law & employees of a private company can keep firearms in their POVs(private vehicles) while at work.
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 10:03 AM   #34
scaatylobo
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 7, 2010
Location: Western NYS
Posts: 1,349
IF ?

IF your still ALIVE after a confrontation on a businesses property .

IF you are dead,or injured,do you honestly feel that any amount of payment would make you [ of your survivors ] feel any better ?.

I don't get that !.
__________________
A bad day living,Beats a good day dead
scaatylobo is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 12:35 PM   #35
NoVA Shooter
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 13, 2009
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyShackelford View Post
I read over a few recent posts & wanted to share some input....

I agree that private businesses or owners can be held accountable or be liable(civil actions) for the lack of security, violent crime, thefts, etc. I know of a few high profile cases in my metro areas where a business or owner was sued over a violent crime. One incident involved a young woman who worked at a used car lot. Some psycho kidnapped her at work, restrained her, put the victim in his trunk then raped & murdered her later.
The woman's family sued the car lot owners for wrongful death/poor security.
There's a big difference between being held accountable and being sued. I can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean I'll win or that the other person did anything wrong.

However, I do agree that a business can be held liable IF they are NEGLIGENT in their obligation to provide a 'safe' environment. For example, if a business is aware of criminal activity occurring on their property but does nothing to curtail it, and that leads to an innocent person being victimized, then yes, the business is negligent and can be held liable.
NoVA Shooter is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 01:30 PM   #36
buck460XVR
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 6, 2007
Posts: 4,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodwha View Post

Who are they to say I cannot take measures to defend myself when they offer nothing in terms of protection?

The measures to defend yourself and the terms of their protection is the option for you, to go somewhere else. It' pretty simple. Kinda like walking down a dark alley in the bad side of town @ 2 a.m. If you have the option to use a safer alternative route, why wouldn't you?
__________________
Guns are like Harleys and women.....you can never have too many.


Theiyr're...........take that Grammar Nazis!
buck460XVR is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 05:58 PM   #37
george burns
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 26, 2014
Posts: 213
Also do they own or rent and is the parking lot private public or leased along with the building. If so how many rows does their lease state is for their use. I know that a store I owned in the county I was in, stipulated that the individual stores only had say so over the first 2 lanes of parking spaces.
I found that out when I asked police to move some crazy homeless people away from the front of my store because they were harassing my customers and begging for money, 'set up camp there"
Cops said we can only by law move them 2 aisles out. But they suggested the heat would take it's toll if we stopped giving them water, and that worked. So if you had an incident in the parking lot of a "no gun" establishment, they may have no legal rights depending on where you are when it happens. All leases probably vary to some extent.
It may be in "feet" someplace else. "The extent of their domain".
george burns is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 10:31 PM   #38
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 1,937
Slant....

By lawsuit or civil action I mean a legal action where the party wins or prevails.
Of course, in the USA court system nearly anyone could sue anyone, but if a jury or judge/magistrate agrees with the civil actions. Then the defendant or municipal agency better be ready to pay!
Some members slant things then say the same thing.
My city & county settle civil actions left & right.
They pay off the citizens or family members then get a NDA(non disclosure agreement).
Many private corporations do the same. The - press & late night comic jokes on national talk shows aren't worth it.

In my state, if a CCW license holder or armed citizen is cleared by prosecutors & sworn LE then they can not face civil actions or wrongful death lawsuits.
Now that doesn't mean some slick law firm won't rail against a business or group related to the critical incident.
See the Zimmerman/Martin event in 2012. Martin(the victim) had lawyers & family members(parents) who reportedly got approx $1,000,000.00 from the Sanford HOA(insurance policy). George Zimmerman was cleared.
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is offline  
Old July 15, 2014, 09:34 AM   #39
NoVA Shooter
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 13, 2009
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyShackelford View Post
By lawsuit or civil action I mean a legal action where the party wins or prevails.
Of course, in the USA court system nearly anyone could sue anyone, but if a jury or judge/magistrate agrees with the civil actions. Then the defendant or municipal agency better be ready to pay!

Some members slant things then say the same thing.
Your original post said nothing about the outcome of the suits.
It's not a reasonable assumption to think that a person would interpret 'sued' or 'lawsuit' to mean 'legal action where the party wins or prevails'.

I was merely pointing out that being sued does not equate to accountability or liability without an adverse disposition.

Quote:
My city & county settle civil actions left & right.
They pay off the citizens or family members then get a NDA(non disclosure agreement).
Many private corporations do the same. The - press & late night comic jokes on national talk shows aren't worth it.
What you described in no way demonstrates accountability or liability (matter of fact, these settlements are almost always written with explicit language saying there is no fault, liability, or accountability). This happens all the time in the medical profession as well; it's cheaper to settle than to go to trial to prove you're innocent. It doesn't mean the paying party has done anything wrong. It's more of a side effect of a dysfunctional judicial system.

Quote:
In my state, if a CCW license holder or armed citizen is cleared by prosecutors & sworn LE then they can not face civil actions or wrongful death lawsuits.
Great laws, however, they have no bearing on whether or not the state will file criminal charges against the CCW for possessing a gun in a restricted area (as per the OP). While, IMO, it is unlikely that a justified use of a firearm in a prohibited place will result in charges, it could happen.
NoVA Shooter is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.