Gun stores do it - why not banks?

[fulano]

A few letters come to mind, FDIC. A bank could care less if they are robbed and have a policy coverage for robbery and theft..

FDIC does NOT cover armed robbery losses.

Fixed that for you, The FDIC covers robbery by "white collar" crooks.

[stroguy]

A few letters come to mind, FDIC. A bank could care less if they are robbed and have a policy coverage for robbery and theft..

FDIC does NOT cover robbery losses. The bank eats the loss.

That is just plain wrong. FDIC provides coverage for robbery and theft for the customer. The bank can buy insurance for robbery.

[terryg]

This thread has raised more questions for me than it settled. I appreciate all of the replies.

It seems that many (perhaps most) feel that gun stores are in a questionable legal area by having employees open carry.

On the one hand, they obviously have the owners permission thereby satisfying the 'control of property' portion of PC §46.02. But at least in some since they may also be responsible for security, therefore they might be violating OCC §1702.161.

I suppose they are two arguments that could be used to minimize the connection to OCC §1702.161.

1. The are probably not required to carry - openly or concealed.
2. They are not hired as security guards. They are hired as salesmen and/or counter personnel, etc. They are not forbidden, however, from protecting themselves including the visual display of a self defense weapon.

If these are valid justifications for this in a gun store, then they would also be applicable to tellers in a bank.

I suppose there is a third argument that would not apply to the bank ... and that is employees open carrying in a gun store are, in essence, a walking advertisement for the business that employs them.

I am really interested in hearing more legal analysis of this. Perhaps Mr. Cotton and Mr. Rothstien or other legal minds would care to weigh in.

[BrianSW99]

This thread has raised more questions for me than it settled. I appreciate all of the replies.

It seems that many (perhaps most) feel that gun stores are in a questionable legal area by having employees open carry.

On the one hand, they obviously have the owners permission thereby satisfying the 'control of property' portion of PC §46.02. But at least in some since they may also be responsible for security, therefore they might be violating OCC §1702.161.

I suppose they are two arguments that could be used to minimize the connection to OCC §1702.161.

1. The are probably not required to carry - openly or concealed.
2. They are not hired as security guards. They are hired as salesmen and/or counter personnel, etc. They are not forbidden, however, from protecting themselves including the visual display of a self defense weapon.

If these are valid justifications for this in a gun store, then they would also be applicable to tellers in a bank.

I suppose there is a third argument that would not apply to the bank ... and that is employees open carrying in a gun store are, in essence, a walking advertisement for the business that employs them.

I am really interested in hearing more legal analysis of this. Perhaps Mr. Cotton and Mr. Rothstien or other legal minds would care to weigh in.

My question would be what constitutes "control of the property." I wouldn't think the owners permission to carry would necessarily mean that the person is in control of the property.

Brian

[MeMelYup]

Why not allow the employees to concealed carry and offer them a free class. Then if they wish to get a CHL it is up to the individual. Also, have a sign in the entry doors stating "CHL Friendly".

If you look several of the laws they say "you may carry with the owner/managers consent. If you look at schools, there is a line in the law that states something like, "one may carry a gun with written consent from the governing body". That is why I say write the school/college and ask.