Are the owners at fault? Did you have to go there? If you know that it is a gun free zone before going into a business that you weren't forced to go into, whose at fault?Question: why do you think you can’t go out and sue a company that didn’t let you carry on in their building?
Are the owners at fault? Did you have to go there? If you know that it is a gun free zone before going into a business that you weren't forced to go into, whose at fault?
Question: why do you think you can’t go out and sue a company that didn’t let you carry on in their building?
If you can't answer that question yourself, then maybe you should have more rules (laws) running your life.That’s what a civil lawsuit would flesh out...
.Any OLD TIMERS on here remember the days of XXX Rated movie houses? , you were not forced to pay money and walk in.. Today I doubt there are many around, but back in the 60's they were popping up all over the place.
For one, Texas law (30.06) allows private businesses to decide whether they want licensed individuals to carry on their property or not, so while the burden of proof in civil court is lower, I still don't see what grounds a person would have for such a case.
Secondly, since that law has been on the books since 1 Sep, 1997, if such a lawsuit were even possible don't you think someone would have tried it by now?
And there have been law suits to sue the gun manufacturers that made the gun that a maniac used to kill people, and I certainly don't think that would be right either, had the people suing won those.You can sue for anything. You just have to demonstrate damages.
IMO the reason you haven’t seen it is because as a whole the demographic that carry’s isn’t as likely to sue.
This is EZ to fix and as much as I hate to say it we can learn a lesson from a lot of other countries.And there have been law suits to sue the gun manufacturers that made the gun that a maniac used to kill people, and I certainly don't think that would be right either, had the people suing won those.
You're essentially entering a restrictive covenant every time you enter a private business.If you want the public on your property or in your business and you restrict their Constitutional rights in favor of your private property rights then you should be responsible for damage YOU engendered by allowing people there and restriscting their rights. You can be a puplic place or a private one but when you set conditions you should be held liable for the damage you allow.
I fail to understand why running a business makes one think they are the more equal pigs on the farm
You're essentially entering a restrictive covenant every time you enter a private business.
Do you think the two guys at Starbucks were right?
You're essentially agreeing with them.
I think I saw you there a couple of times.I know that's right...
I think I saw you there a couple of times.
A private business isn't public. My land, my rules.Just to play devils advocate, constitutionally baring arms is more of a protected class than someone in a wheel chair who has guaranteed access thanks to the ADA...