evolution

One of my favorite bloggers, Bill Quick of Daily Pundit, noticed my thoughts on the “no-concealed-carry” signs now popping up all over, the law having taken effect on 1 January.

He asks a good question on his own blog:

I wonder how much of this posting of signs to circumvent concealed carry laws is at the behest of liability insurers?

And later in his own comments section:

Once again, I wonder what is driving this? You’d think that if somebody is injured or killed because legal cc folks were forbidden to carry their weapons, the owners would be laying theselves open to huge lawsuits. I have no idea where the law stands on this, though. Does anybody know of any cases that would be more revealing? Or do the legal eagles of the insurance companies see it the opposite way?

The question here is one of liability for injury if, say, one were legally prevented from carrying a concealed firearm into a business as provided for under the law (which is here, the enrolled version from the last session), and one then sustains some kind of attack or injury that might have been prevented by one’s firearm.

Anyone out there want to rule on that? I think, unfortunately, that this is one of those unclear things that is going to have to be resolved in court if and when it happens.