Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

So that others may learn.

Moderators: Keith B, Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby mojo84 » Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:06 pm

Not the best decision regarding tactics. This guy may be in trouble.

http://www.ksat.com/news/employee-involved-in-little-red-barn-shooting-cooperating-with-police

The shooting, which was caught on camera, showed the waiter firing three rounds at the wall. Some people at the restaurant said the server was verbally and physically assaulted after he brought out the wrong order.

User avatar

longhorn86
Senior Member
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:49 pm
Location: Schertz, TX

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby longhorn86 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 5:55 am

It was reported on local news this morning that the waiter did not have an LTC. This coupled with the restaurant's reported no guns policy for their employees, I would venture to say he is in deep. Fired at the very least, charges most likely.

http://www.ksat.com/news/waiter-who-fir ... t-incident
NRA Life Member

User avatar

goose
Senior Member
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: Katy-ish

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby goose » Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:19 am

Why is everyone upset? Anyone with a bit of sense knows that all walls are made to trap bullets. Wasn't it just last year that San Antonio passed new building codes requiring all dead air spaces in walls be filled with shredded old tires? That's why we shoot into 'em...............
NRA Endowment - NRA RSO - Μολὼν λάβε

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby mojo84 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:57 am

Glad to learn he does not have an LTC. Just another example of how making a rule prohibiting guns does not actually prevent guns from being brought into a location. When will people realize rules do not prevent bad behavior.
Last edited by mojo84 on Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.


SoConfused
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:16 pm

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby SoConfused » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:14 am

He took quite a stupid risk discharging his weapon without being sure of the backstop and will probably lose his job due to the company's gun policy.

However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

User avatar

goose
Senior Member
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: Katy-ish

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby goose » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:21 am

SoConfused wrote:He took quite a stupid risk discharging his weapon without being sure of the backstop and will probably lose his job due to the company's gun policy.

However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.


Under what authority? Castle doctrine and MPA aren't in play as best as I can tell.
NRA Endowment - NRA RSO - Μολὼν λάβε

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby mojo84 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:35 am

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.


I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.


SoConfused
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:16 pm

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby SoConfused » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:17 am

mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.


I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

User avatar

goose
Senior Member
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: Katy-ish

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby goose » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:29 am

SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.


I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.


I think that analogy that I would apply here is one of a ship Captain being relieved of duty for not following protocol. Once he violated his employer's firearms policy I think that it would be a trick to claim his employer then granted him control. Granted, I can't say you're wrong until there is case law. That said, I would NOT want the employer on the stand saying I was not granted control of a space and then my lawyer trying to argue the definition of control. Could it be done? Possibly. Is it a stretch to claim he was legally carrying? Probably.
NRA Endowment - NRA RSO - Μολὼν λάβε

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby mojo84 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:44 am

SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.


I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.


That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.


SoConfused
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:16 pm

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby SoConfused » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:42 am

mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.


I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.


That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.

It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. :cheers2: Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.

User avatar

TexasTornado
Senior Member
Posts: 721
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby TexasTornado » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:51 am

SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.


I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.


That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.

It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. :cheers2: Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.



I foresee the waiter being out of a job and (with a good lawyer) receiving a fine for discharging his firearm.

In my opinion just deserts....
Image
"I can see it's dangerous for you, but if the government trusts me, maybe you could."

NRA Lifetime Member

User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby Flightmare » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:01 pm

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Little-Red-Barn-Steakhouse-shooting-San-Antonio-9182404.php

SAPD spokesman Douglas Greene said the department is looking for both the employee and the patron. The customer may face an assault charge — depending on if the employee wants to press charges. The waiter may face a charge of unlawful carry of a weapon, Greene said.
Deplorable lunatic since 2016

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby mojo84 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:50 pm

SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.


I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.


That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.

It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. :cheers2: Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.


Where in the law is an unlicensed person allowed to carry a handgun off their property or property in their control? Since he was at work, he can't even argue he was traveling.

They may not charge him for the unlawful carry but I bet they do charge him for unlawful discharge. However, just because they may not charge him with unlawful carry, it doesn't mean hee want breaking the law.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2644
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:04 pm

mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.


I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.


That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.

It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. :cheers2: Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.


Where in the law is an unlicensed person allowed to carry a handgun off their property or property in their control? Since he was at work, he can't even argue he was traveling.

They may not charge him for the unlawful carry but I bet they do charge him for unlawful discharge. However, just because they may not charge him with unlawful carry, it doesn't mean hee want breaking the law.


I think he should be charged with unlawful carry. If the restaurant serves alcohol, that is a felony, as has been pointed out.

But playing devil's advocate to my belief, if the employer explicitly allowed employees to carry guns, then he might be OK. I'm thinking of the practice at just about every public range where employees openly carried guns prior to OC going into effect in January. The only way that was legal is if every employee at that range was "in control" of the premises by virtue of being an employee at a place where the owner explicitly granted permission to carry. Since LEO's are regular visitors at most ranges and (to my knowledge) no employee was ever arrested for illegally openly carrying, LEO's in general must believe that it is OK for them to do so.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


Return to “Never Again!!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: philip964 and 4 guests