While I have nothing to really base this on...I am still truly hoping the lawsuit is eventually dismissed.
However, I wonder if some good could come from it all.
It seems one of the reason restaurant owners are against the law is because of what they see as the possible liability on their part for the actions of a
HCP holder on their property.
Maybe this discussion can open the door for new liability and/or
non-liability legislation to be introduced next year.
Again...no hard facts to base this on, but I figured that one of the main reasons a business may post against carry is the liability (real or perceived) on their part for the actions of a
HCP holder on their property.
...and let's be honest, if someone injured in a shooting does sue, the property owner will probably be named since they are the "deep pockets".
So a law that specifically said the property owner is not liable for the independent actions or results of the actions of a
HCP holder on their property would give them some ease and for sure one less reason to post.
But...on the flip side, if the above is done and the place still chooses to post against carry, I would like to see a
HCP holder specifically be able to seek damages if something occurs in a place.