- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,332
- Reaction score
- 67,396
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I would tend to agree with you IF they did not have signs prohibiting weapons on the premises therefor allowing one to be able to defend themselves. As they had signs disallowing one to be armed, there for by extension placing the responsibility of the safety of the patrons in their care. I would say the ruling against the customers was in error.
I wonder what arguments the attorneys for the customers made on their behalf?
Those "no gun" signs simply define a private property policy, much like putting up stop signs in a private parking lot. Anyone should realize that they are not enforced except by (public) LEOs since there is no private security present. If you see a person with a gun in a "gun free zone", or someone running a stop sign, then you must call the police yourself rather than trust that the popcorn (or shoe) seller who likely did not see that "crime" will do so for you. Every bar in Texas is a "gun free zone" but nobody expects that the bar's employees (much less its owner) will guarantee that no person can enter that bar armed.