Non-CHL holders rights

[mgood]

I've been in gun stores in Texas where all the employees carried openly. I'd don't believe it's legal. But I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted, or even harassed, for it. It's considered prudent and LEOs who frequent such places generally don't mention anything about it.

[ScottDLS]

My opinion (so you know what it's worth) is that a gun store owner/lessee can delegate "control" over the property/premises to all employees on duty. So the store is property under their control and they can lawfully open carry as long as they don't violate some other statue.

Yup and I believe that also applies to ANY business, not just gun stores.

I eagerly await the citation to statutory or case law that supports this position.

The cite is PC46.15 (Non-Applicability)
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the persons control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard....



So in my (hypothetical) gun shop, my employees primary responsibility in to help me sell firearms, ammunition, and training. I place the premises under their control for this purpose and they openly wear handguns to display the merchandise and their open carrying techniques. I see no violation of Texas criminal law here, which is why we likely see gun shop employees open carrying all the time.

[roberts]

"on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or property"

(bold added)

If that was a response to my request for a citation to statutory law, please read the part in bold. (If you were agreeing with me that the statute doesn't support the previous posters' opinions, thank you for the cite.)

If an employee's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard while armed (since that's what we're talking about), the Texas Occupations Code, TOC 1702.161 has a whole lot to say about the matter.

What if an employee's primary responsibility is sales or computers or accounting?

[mgood]

I wonder if the definition of "premises under the persons control" has ever been challenged in court.
When I read it, I think they mean the one person in control there, like the owner or manager.
But the idea that all the employees are in control is interesting and I wonder if it would hold up. There are ten employees in here now and the manager says we're all in control.
I think it most likely that the gun stores where all the employees carry just don't happen to be the sort of place where someone would get excited about it. Not many anti-gunners are likely to go in there and the people who do shop at gun stores are mostly going to be people who accept guns and who see the logic of gunstore employees carrying. (Believe it or not, people do try to rob gun stores.) So no one's ever made a stink about it.

I once worked in a convenience store, usually by myself. The manager, more than once, told me that when I was there by myself, I was in charge. What she was saying was that I could refuse service to anyone and tell troublemakers to hit the road. But thinking back, she was explicitly making the store "premises under [my] control." I carried concealed there (without a license) and always assumed that it was illegal. But considered from that angle, maybe it was actually legal. Many times someone asked me if I was the manager. I would half-jokingly reply that I was the manager right then because I was the only one there.

[LarryH]

The cite is PC46.15 (Non-Applicability)
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the persons control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard....

The meaning is:

Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the persons control.

If the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard.... <the regulations governing security guards apply>.

IMHO, if the second sentence does not apply, the whole paragraph could be considered to end after the word "control".

[ScottDLS]

The cite is PC46.15 (Non-Applicability)
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the persons control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard....

The meaning is:

Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the persons control.

If the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard.... <the regulations governing security guards apply>.

IMHO, if the second sentence does not apply, the whole paragraph could be considered to end after the word "control".

That's my point. If you're not acting as a security guard and the premises are under your control, then you can carry. I was providing the cite that was requested.

[srothstein]

What if an employee's primary responsibility is sales or computers or accounting?

The law does not mention what type of business or what the primary duties are if they are not security. If I own a computer store and give control over who gets served to all employees (any employee can refuse service to anyone and ask them to leave the premise) then all employees could legally carry, either concealed or openly.

I think you might find this has been done and not questioned at certain high dollar value businesses, such as jewelry stores. Consider those stores where the customers get buzzed in and out. Any employee who has the authority to allow some into the store is in control of the premises. All of those employees could carry legally. I would just assume that they carry concealed to avoid giving the customers fits and the robebrs warning.

And, of course, this is just my opinion. I do not know of any case law which defines "control of the premises". The only cases I am aware of that involve it all involved the manager being the one carrying. It made this a non-issue in those cases.

[Purplehood]

I "heard" that you could have one armed employee per store.

[LarryH]

The cite is PC46.15 (Non-Applicability)
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the persons control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard....

The meaning is:

Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the persons control.

If the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard.... <the regulations governing security guards apply>.

IMHO, if the second sentence does not apply, the whole paragraph could be considered to end after the word "control".

That's my point. If you're not acting as a security guard and the premises are under your control, then you can carry. I was providing the cite that was requested.

I understood that. I don't think everybody else did.

[austin-tatious]

The cite is PC46.15 (Non-Applicability)
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the persons control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard....

The meaning is:

Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the persons control.

If the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard.... <the regulations governing security guards apply>.

IMHO, if the second sentence does not apply, the whole paragraph could be considered to end after the word "control".

That's my point. If you're not acting as a security guard and the premises are under your control, then you can carry. I was providing the cite that was requested.

I understood that. I don't think everybody else did.

This is what I said earlier. The more I read the pro and con arguments that have been submitted, the more I'm convinced that the PC states that the owner or person who is given control by the owner can carry openly or concealed. IF and ONLY IF("unless") that employee is there for security...then they have to comply with the regulations for security guards.

What we really need is a court case that addressed the subject. IANAL, and I don't know where to begin to look up cases that may have covered this issue.

[shootthesheet]

The problem is handgun. A non-CHL holder can get a Kel Tek Sub2000 and carry that rifle all day long.

[The Annoyed Man]

This may sound like a strange question for a CHL forum where most of us already have a CHL or are waiting for one. But, what exactly are the carry rights of a non-CHL holder?

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.



Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[srothstein]

Just so you have them right, here are your actual rights in Texas (Article 38.22 of the Code of Criminal procedure):

Sec. 2. No written statement made by an accused as a result of custodial interrogation is admissible as evidence
against him in any criminal proceeding unless it is shown on the face of the statement that:
(a) the accused, prior to making the statement, either received from a magistrate the warning provided in Article 15.17
of this code or received from the person to whom the statement is made a warning that:
(1) he has the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all and that any statement he makes may be
used against him at his trial;
(2) any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him in court;
(3) he has the right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to and during any questioning;
(4) if he is unable to employ a lawyer, he has the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise him prior to and during
any questioning; and
(5) he has the right to terminate the interview at any time; and
(b) the accused, prior to and during the making of the statement, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the
rights set out in the warning prescribed by Subsection (a) of this section.

My pet peeve is the use of the phrase "can and will be used against you". There is no guarantee it will be used either way, and thus the rights warning does not truly use that phrase.

[Keith B]

My copy of Miranda I carried did not have 'and will' in it. It only stated '....can be used against you in a court of law.'