Permission to carry in a 30.06 posted area

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:00 pm

carlson1 wrote:Thanks I THINK I have it.
I can they can't?

Correct, unless you're gone and they are in control of the property. Then they can carry openly.

Chas.

Xander · Post by **Xander** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:03 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I don't think the Asst. Pastors can carry openly, unless they are in control of the church premises. If any Asst. Pastor is there when you are not, and if he has authority to "control" the premises, then I think open carry is permitted. If you are present, then you clearly have control of the premises and Asst. Pastors do not.

Why would this be different from say, a gun shop where all the employees carry openly? Wouldn't Carlson, as the individual with control of the property be able to allow anyone he wished to open carry, just as the owner of a gun shop can, or am I missing something?

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:10 pm

Xander wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: I don't think the Asst. Pastors can carry openly, unless they are in control of the church premises. If any Asst. Pastor is there when you are not, and if he has authority to "control" the premises, then I think open carry is permitted. If you are present, then you clearly have control of the premises and Asst. Pastors do not.
Why would this be different from say, a gun shop where all the employees carry openly? Am I just missing something?

My thought exactly. I would think that the owner/controller could delegate authority to select employees such that THEY TOO are "in control" of the property, at least with respect to the general public. I do not think that it makes any difference whether the owner/controller is present or not.

Say there are 3 assistants of EQUAL RANK. The principal leaves the premesis. Are all 3 of them "in control"? If not, why not? And who determines which one of them is in control?

I would respectfully suggest that Chas reconsider this. I suspect there is a way to properly delegate authority to open carry to any number of employees/associates.

Liberty · Post by **Liberty** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:17 pm

Xander wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: I don't think the Asst. Pastors can carry openly, unless they are in control of the church premises. If any Asst. Pastor is there when you are not, and if he has authority to "control" the premises, then I think open carry is permitted. If you are present, then you clearly have control of the premises and Asst. Pastors do not.
Why would this be different from say, a gun shop where all the employees carry openly? Wouldn't Carlson, as the individual with control of the property be able to allow anyone he wished to open carry, just as the owner of a gun shop can, or am I missing something?

Just because they do it doesn't mean that it's legal.

Right2Carry · Post by **Right2Carry** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:45 pm

Liberty wrote:
Xander wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: I don't think the Asst. Pastors can carry openly, unless they are in control of the church premises. If any Asst. Pastor is there when you are not, and if he has authority to "control" the premises, then I think open carry is permitted. If you are present, then you clearly have control of the premises and Asst. Pastors do not.
Why would this be different from say, a gun shop where all the employees carry openly? Wouldn't Carlson, as the individual with control of the property be able to allow anyone he wished to open carry, just as the owner of a gun shop can, or am I missing something?
Just because they do it doesn't mean that it's legal.

Gun Range personel also carry openly at the range. In fact almost any range I have ever been to, the employees are openly carrying on the range property. I also think the authority to authorize others to open carry on the owners property can be extended to employees of the owners choice as evidenced by not only gun ranges but gun shops.

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:58 pm

Right2Carry wrote: Gun Range personel also carry openly at the range. In fact almost any range I have ever been to, the employees are openly carrying on the range property. I also think the authority to authorize others to open carry on the owners property can be extended to employees of the owners choice as evidenced by not only gun ranges but gun shops.

I don't think gun ranges are a good example. There's a provision in the law that allows carrying when engaged in a sporting activity involving the use of firearms. This would include hunting, target shooting, etc.

But I think that open carry in gun SHOPS is certainly on point. It is very common, and I have never heard of a gun shop employee getting busted for it.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:05 pm

Ranges are covered by "sporting activity". Gun shops are not.

I'm unaware of anyone ever being prosecuted for open carry while working in a gun shop, but it's not legal for anyone who doesn't "own or control" the premises.

Kevin

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:26 pm

KBCraig wrote:Ranges are covered by "sporting activity". Gun shops are not.

I'm unaware of anyone ever being prosecuted for open carry while working in a gun shop, but it's not legal for anyone who doesn't "own or control" the premises.

Kevin

Sure. But I think that multiple people can be 'in control". Otherwise, you get all kinds of absurd results.

Say you have a Dell computer store. The store manager is "in control" and carries openly. Then Michael Dell (when he was CEO) stops by to visit. Who's in control now? Does the store manager become a criminal when Dell walks in?

I doubt it.

Suppose Dell decides to carry openly in the store. Does the manager now have to disarm and lock his gun away?

See where this goes.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:46 pm

frankie_the_yankee wrote:See where this goes.

Of course I do: the law is absurd.

But absurdity has never stopped bad laws from being enforced.

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:49 pm

KBCraig wrote:
frankie_the_yankee wrote:See where this goes.
Of course I do: the law is absurd.

But absurdity has never stopped bad laws from being enforced.

I don't think the law is absurd. I think we are mistakenly giving it an absurd meaning.

I believe "control" can be delegated and exercised by multiple individuals at the same time.

Xander · Post by **Xander** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:05 pm

frankie_the_yankee wrote: I don't think the law is absurd. I think we are mistakenly giving it an absurd meaning.

I believe "control" can be delegated and exercised by multiple individuals at the same time.

I agree. Unless there is language in the code, or case law that precludes multiple people from being in "control" of a premises at any given time, I don't see why it wouldn't be perfectly reasonable for all employees of a shop, or all the staff of a church to be considered equally in control. No?

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:48 pm

KBCraig wrote:Ranges are covered by "sporting activity". Gun shops are not.

I'm unaware of anyone ever being prosecuted for open carry while working in a gun shop, but it's not legal for anyone who doesn't "own or control" the premises.

Kevin

Correct. It's also illegal for a non-CHL to take a handgun into a gun show, but people are never prosecuted for it. Just because it's commonly done doesn't mean it's legal.

Chas.

Xander · Post by **Xander** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:49 pm

I might change my own mind on this one, to some extent at least. Assuming that the clause in P.C. Â§46.15(b)(8) regarding the possession of firearms by folks with businesses that serve alcohol is designed to give them parity with other businesses, then it would appear that the intent of the law, at least, would limit control to those in designated supervisory roles. Though this would not necessarily limit carrying to a single person, it would seem to rule out the ability to authorize everyone to carry, and carry openly.

The bit of the law in question:

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(8) holds an alcoholic beverage permit or license or
is an employee of a holder of an alcoholic beverage permit or
license if the person is supervising the operation of the permitted
or licensed premises.

The thoughts of those with more legal qualifications than I would be appreciated.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:55 pm

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
KBCraig wrote:Ranges are covered by "sporting activity". Gun shops are not.

I'm unaware of anyone ever being prosecuted for open carry while working in a gun shop, but it's not legal for anyone who doesn't "own or control" the premises.

Kevin
Sure. But I think that multiple people can be 'in control". Otherwise, you get all kinds of absurd results.

Say you have a Dell computer store. The store manager is "in control" and carries openly. Then Michael Dell (when he was CEO) stops by to visit. Who's in control now? Does the store manager become a criminal when Dell walks in?

I doubt it.

Suppose Dell decides to carry openly in the store. Does the manager now have to disarm and lock his gun away?

See where this goes.

If Michael Dell assumes control of the property, then yes. Either disarm or conceal your handgun of you are a CHL.

The statute clearly wants to allow a business owner to carry a gun, or an employee to whom control of the property has been entrusted. This is not an absurd result. In fact, business owners routinely leave their businesses temporary under the control of a trusted employee. If the legislature had intended to allow any employee to carry, with permission of the owner, then language to that effect would have been included.

Chas.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:02 pm

There is no statutory authority for the contention that multiple people can be in control of the same business property. Without such authority, it would be unwise for anyone to carry on their employer's property, unless they are solely in control.

Chas.