Texas recently had a chance to live up to its undeserved reputation as a palladium of gun rights, and failed.
Texas bill SB 82 was allowed to languish and die in committee. The text is very short and could have been improved, for example by narrowing “criminal act” to acts involving use or threat of violence, but the bill had a worthy goal in making business owners liable for crime occurring on their premises if they post signage to prevent concealed carry of firearms by CCW holders. I hope the bill is resurrected, improved, and passed.
Cam Edwards criticized the bill here. I’ve followed Cam for decades, since NRANews days, and met him once back in 2007 at the first Gun Blogger Rendezvous in Reno. I lost track for several years after getting banned from Facebook and LinkedIn, but now i follow him on Truth. Few if any protect 2A more fiercely and ably than Cam, but i have to disagree with almost everything in that particular article.
Cam says the bill is akin to gun control in that it makes us give up our property rights in exchange for safety. Nonsense! The business owner is already liable to business invitees (customers) for damages occurring on the premises. The question is, will an intervening tortfeasor’s unforseeable criminal act cut off liability of the business owner? Generally it would, but if the business owner forces his customers to disarm, that very act of creating a victim disarmament zone raises the foreseeability of violent crime in that zone. Maybe not, if customers are thoroughly screened for weapons and security is provided, but no business is going to do that. The reality of “gun free zones” is that they attract armed criminals. So what is really happening without the bill, is that the business owner makes ALL of his customers give up THEIR safety (ie, their right to life) so that the business owner can play not God but a delusional god who thinks criminals (or non-criminals, for that matter) will comply with his stupid sign. SB 82 restores balance by imposing stupid prizes where the business owner decides to play stupid games.
Cam next suggests broadening the bill to apply as well to government property. While that would be nice, as would simply getting rid of all gun free zones, SCOTUS has left ambiguity re sensitive places and broadening the bill would likely make it toxic to legislators at this stage, a poison pill tactic that gun controllers would celebrate.
Having followed Cam for decades, during the heady growth years of shall-issue, i know he is an indefatigable opponent of “gun free zones”. I just have to disagree with his apparent elevation here of property rights over the right to life. Although it is often true that rights to liberty/property/life can be viewed as so related as to be identical (life is property, property is life), there is in fact and in law a hierarchy of rights and right to life must always be at the top. That said, the bill simply restores balance, in response to the business owner’s elevation of his own property right above the right to life of ALL of his customers.
Allowing businesses to prohibit carry with impunity frustrates carry due to the impracticality of complying. And there are additional safety concerns attendant to forcing carriers to load and unload their weapons repeatedly in cramped automobile confines not optimal for safety and under circumstances where the carrier may be rushed due to schedule on a busy day. A stranger could approach, with bad result — it’s happened.
Most gun owners, even if licensed CCW holders, don’t carry as often as they should and may be unaware of these impracticalities but some empathy could be obtained from teenage girls forced to change in their cars while queer dudes take over their locker rooms.
California narrowly escaped posting of businesses (“vampire rule”) but the Ninth Circuit panel left a clear roadmap (to Hawaii) for imposing it whenever Sacramento wants to take the plunge and throw those dice, politically.
For now, we have enough on our plate dealing with California’s remaining extremely broad “sensitive place” restrictions. My successful 2A suit could be helpful to anyone seeking to punish wayward cops dumb enough to actually enforce these restrictions.
