§ 95A.0001.Evidence of Failure to Forbid Handguns

An evidentiary exclusion addressing one theory of premises liability.

The fact that a card, sign, or other document described by Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3) or 30.07(c)(3) is not posted on the property of a business, or any other evidence that a person failed to exercise the option to forbid the carrying of a handgun by a license holder:

is not admissible as evidence in a trial on the merits against a person who owns, controls, or manages the property where the cause of action arises from an injury sustained on the property; and does not support a cause of action against that person.

Two effects, and the second is the substantive one. The first is evidentiary; the second says the absence of a sign cannot found a claim at all.

The referenced Penal Code provisions are the notice sections that let a property owner exclude licensed carry — the "30.06" sign for concealed carry and the "30.07" sign for open carry. Posting is optional.

The claim the section forecloses is that a business which chose not to post, and where someone was later shot, was negligent in permitting licensed carry on its premises.

The provision leaves the choice a real one. Without it, declining to post would carry a litigation risk that posting does not, which would make the option one-sided in practice.

Other premises theories are untouched — inadequate security, a known dangerous condition, negligent hiring. What is removed is the inference from the missing sign.