30.06 because of 30.07?

[London]

Never gonna happen. Civil law does not work that way.

My mom works for lawyers who've done it successfully. Dude was at his apartment, apartment had "No weapons" clause in its contract, dude got capped in the parking lot and died. Dude's family sued the apartment on the grounds that if they don't allow people to defend themselves they have the duty to provide it. They won. This was in Texas.

Believe it or not. Agree with it or not.

 

[scap99]

I thought HEB had both .06 and .07 signs, but the HEB I was just in only had .07 sign. This is in Pflugerville just outside of Austin.

Only seen them posted 07

 

[txinvestigator]

My mom works for lawyers who've done it successfully. Dude was at his apartment, apartment had "No weapons" clause in its contract, dude got capped in the parking lot and died. Dude's family sued the apartment on the grounds that if they don't allow people to defend themselves they have the duty to provide it. They won. This was in Texas.

Believe it or not. Agree with it or not.

I would have to see the suit. That is just not congruent with Texas civil law. First of all, no weapons does not equal not allowing people to defend themselves..

Plaintiff and defendant?

 

[grahamiv]

There is no doubt that many of these businesses have been influenced by the bad media attention of some OC "advocates", but I also believe that many are getting bad information or even pressure from the Greater Houston Retailers Cooperative Association (GHRA). I have heard GHRA are telling retailers they need to post both signs to reduce liability and keep insurance rates low. Maybe we need to apply a little pressure on them as well? Many retailers are likely to listen to GHRA with out taking the time to educate themselves because they are busy running their businesses and take the easy route and put up a sign (often a non-compliant sign). I also have heard that GHRA is handing out signs to retailers which are very easy to make copies of and tape on the doors at the retailers location.

Just my $.02


III

 

[RACER X]

Had a "conversation" in the DMN op-ed comments section, guy claimed an OC leader (turned out to be OCT, no surprise) had criminal record, and was arrested at the State Capitol, but this guy didn't have the balls to fully explain the circumstances, instead left the innuendo hanging that there was a real gun held by a felon....

Confirmed his point in a Houston Chronicle article, that's my source on the details.

Yes, the guy had a criminal (felony) record, including deadly force components. Yes he was arrested at the capitol - had a toy gun holstered (clearly a toy), but was cuffed and led away. Reading further he was being a jerk and claiming his rights, chip on his shoulder ... just the sort of aggravation LEO's don't need with the press there, etc.

Net: "jerk arrested at capitol"... nothing to see here, move along.

But there it is again, if the Chronicle is accurate, OCT has felons in their leadership, these felons are pushing for open and constitutional carry, and are being major jerks about it. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Was that recent, have a link?

sent from the batcloset in the batcave on the batphone

 

[sdismukes]

Was that recent, have a link?

Date is February 13, 2015. Pretty recent. Middle of the debates on OC in the legislature.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...carry-activist-has-long-rap-sheet-6080098.php

Just use your old friend Google, type in "OC Texas leaders arrest" to find more than one incident - such as on Kory Watkins dated the next day (likely triggered by the Chronicle article):

http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/bud-kennedy/article10243031.html

In reading the Watkins article, it seems he can't get a CHL due to his misdemeanor records, so Constitutional OC would allow him to carry handguns outside the Castle Doctrine areas, which he can't now. These guys are blackening the eyes of the rest of us. Makes it look like they want Constitutional OC so they can possess a gun even with a felony rap (which is illegal in the US, federal law), so Constitutional OC would have zero legal effect on the felons in the group.

 

[seeker_two]

Just wait until business start getting sued for failing to provide adequate security during robberies, assaults, and murders. They'll quickly realize those signs were crime-magnets which cost them a lot of money and take them down.

Best part about this strategy....you don't have to win the suit. If businesses have to shell out attorney fees every time an event happens to fend off several suits of this nature, they'll find it cheaper to lose the signs than to keep defending them.

 

[bones_708]

Best part about this strategy....you don't have to win the suit. If businesses have to shell out attorney fees every time an event happens to fend off several suits of this nature, they'll find it cheaper to lose the signs than to keep defending them.

You know that goes bothways Right? They anti's just got smacked down with costs and fees recently and now you are advocating lawsuits that can't be won for nucence value? Personally I would be against such activities. Just because one side has dubious morals doesn't mean the other side should adopt the same.

 

[ChrisX]

An increasing number of places I used to visit with no signs now have 30.06 and 30.07 signs. Thanks a lot you OC idiots.

 

[Mreed911]

An increasing number of places I used to visit with no signs now have 30.06 and 30.07 signs. Thanks a lot you OC idiots.

To be clear, which OC idiots? Everyone, or just the ones that paraded around with rifles and scared the public for no reason?

 

[bowzette]

I was in Whole Foods today in Austin. I saw a .06 but not a .07. Exact opposite of HEB. Maybe I missed it but they would freak at OC! I'm not going to OC but I thought it funny they prohibited concealed but not OC.

 

[ed308]

My mom works for lawyers who've done it successfully. Dude was at his apartment, apartment had "No weapons" clause in its contract, dude got capped in the parking lot and died. Dude's family sued the apartment on the grounds that if they don't allow people to defend themselves they have the duty to provide it. They won. This was in Texas.

Believe it or not. Agree with it or not.

Or, maybe the Apartment Complex's insurance Co. decided to settle rather than risk trial.

 

[Mreed911]

Or, maybe the Apartment Complex's insurance Co. decided to settle rather than risk trial.

That's the same as a victory, plaintiff-wise.

 

[ed308]

That's the same as a victory, plaintiff-wise.

Well maybe. Depends on how much they settled for and the outcome for the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Could be a victory for either side or both sides. Defending and trying a case be really expensive. Plus, if you loose you may have to pay the other sides fees and cost related to the suit.

 

[bones_708]

Well maybe. Depends on how much they settled for and the outcome for the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Could be a victory for either side or both sides. Defending and trying a case be really expensive. Plus, if you loose you may have to pay the other sides fees and cost related to the suit.

And then there is the reality that no lawyer worth his pay would file suit without more than just the fact that they didn't allow weapons. There is lighting, security, screening of tenants, and any number of different things. The way London phrased it just can't be accurate. The fact that it may have been one of the things mentioned doesn't mean it had any real impact on the case.