Open Carry with permission?

[bizarrenormality]

Wow, so we've given up private property rights now?

Yes, it's not illegal if the owner has given you permission to carry openly within the property he owns or controls, assuming you are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a gun.

If I'm wrong, that means there is law that makes it illegal so you'll be able to point me to it. Right? and :D

BTW, you don't need a license to drive a car either, regardless of age, if you're driving on private property. Don't throw in the towel yet, private property rights still exist.

Is that the same section of the law that lets you build your own machine guns and silencers, as long as they're on your private property?

[croc870]

The closest thing to case law here are AG opinions dealing with the premises under control clause.

[JKTex]

Wow, so we've given up private property rights now?

Yes, it's not illegal if the owner has given you permission to carry openly within the property he owns or controls, assuming you are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a gun.

If I'm wrong, that means there is law that makes it illegal so you'll be able to point me to it. Right? and :D

BTW, you don't need a license to drive a car either, regardless of age, if you're driving on private property. Don't throw in the towel yet, private property rights still exist.

Is that the same section of the law that lets you build your own machine guns and silencers, as long as they're on your private property?

Completely irrelevant and "bizarre" and nothing near "normality". A Private Property owner can't give you permission to commit murder on his/her property either, in case that was your next bizarre comment. Next?

[baldeagle]

I agree with the above posts. I'm also concerned with the image presented to the students by a CHL instructor who is open carrying in class.

My CHL instructor opened carried during the entire class, even when we went to the range. Even showed us his fast draw move, several times. 'Course, he is a Captain on the Terrell police force, so I guess it was OK.

[hillfighter]

Completely irrelevant and "bizarre" and nothing near "normality". A Private Property owner can't give you permission to commit murder on his/her property either, in case that was your next bizarre comment. Next?

Why not? It's the same principle as you giving permission to violate 46.02 and/or 46.035 on your property.

[JKTex]

Completely irrelevant and "bizarre" and nothing near "normality". A Private Property owner can't give you permission to commit murder on his/her property either, in case that was your next bizarre comment. Next?

Why not? It's the same principle as you giving permission to violate 46.02 and/or 46.035 on your property.

Is it really? Think about that for a minute.

Is it logical for a person to be able to give you a pass to commit a crime on another person?

It reminds me of he nuclear missile argument some anti-gun folks try to use in discussions about "arms", trying to manipulate the case for the 2nd Amendment.

[Panda]

Red herring. You cant give somebody permission to murder you either.

[wgoforth]

Red herring. You cant give somebody permission to murder you either.

I believe in logic that is called "begging the question" or Petitio Principii. We know murder is illegal. What is being asked is open carrying (legal in some circumstances) legal in yet other circumstances.

[Lucky]

The word "consent" appears seven times in Chapter 30. The word "consent" appears once in Chapter 46, and that relates to minors and parental consent. It's obvious the law says a property owner can deny consent to carry, making it illegal on their property even if someone has a CHL. However, nowhere does it say a property owner can give consent to carry without a license, or in violation of the license conditions. I ask those claiming otherwise to name the actual laws, instead of trying to confuse people with hysteria about nuclear weapons and murder.

[wgoforth]

The word "consent" appears seven times in Chapter 30. The word "consent" appears once in Chapter 46, and that relates to minors and parental consent. It's obvious the law says a property owner can deny consent to carry, making it illegal on their property even if someone has a CHL. However, nowhere does it say a property owner can give consent to carry without a license, or in violation of the license conditions. I ask those claiming otherwise to name the actual laws, instead of trying to confuse people with hysteria about nuclear weapons and murder.

The PC doesn't always use the word "consent" but sometimes "authorization" and similar terms. You can't carry at a school or courthouse....but you can with written authorization. Without such, it ~would~ be violation of normal license conditions. 46.03.1 and .3 and actually it was the folks on the other side of the question (saying no one can give you permission to open carry..or murder, etc) that was using the language of hysteria. I just asked as simple question, and those were some of the responses to it.

[JKTex]

The word "consent" appears seven times in Chapter 30. The word "consent" appears once in Chapter 46, and that relates to minors and parental consent. It's obvious the law says a property owner can deny consent to carry, making it illegal on their property even if someone has a CHL. However, nowhere does it say a property owner can give consent to carry without a license, or in violation of the license conditions. I ask those claiming otherwise to name the actual laws, instead of trying to confuse people with hysteria about nuclear weapons and murder.

Laws don't generally give permission other wise the law books would be never ending. Law usually dictates that something is no legal or specifies conditions.

I think the reason this is difficult is that people are looking for express permission rather than looking for a lack of prohibition.

It's probably much simpler than we're making it though. It's how we roll here on the internet.

[bizarrenormality]

Amazing how some people never heard of TPC 46.02 even after taking a CHL class.

[wgoforth]

Amazing how some people never heard of TPC 46.02 even after taking a CHL class.

Keep in mind the way the penal code is written like the constitution...things get amended and amendments don't always get placed where original statute appears. There are exceptions made to carry in courts and schools with written permission. exceptions to conceal when you open carry on your own property... to ask if there is an exception I wasn't aware of that would allow other employees to open carry does not equate to not knowing 46.02. Simply means I am aware of how difficult the PC can be, esp when you begin looking at nuances and inferences. I never said I thought there was... i was trying to verify that there wasn't something I had missed. Amazes me that folks can be tacky even after taking the non-violent dispute resolution in a CHL class

[JKTex]

Amazing how some people never heard of TPC 46.02 even after taking a CHL class.

Keep in mind the way the penal code is written like the constitution...things get amended and amendments don't always get placed where original statute appears. There are exceptions made to carry in courts and schools with written permission. exceptions to conceal when you open carry on your own property... to ask if there is an exception I wasn't aware of that would allow other employees to open carry does not equate to not knowing 46.02. Simply means I am aware of how difficult the PC can be, esp when you begin looking at nuances and inferences. I never said I thought there was... i was trying to verify that there wasn't something I had missed. Amazes me that folks can be tacky even after taking the non-violent dispute resolution in a CHL class

Amen.

How many people for example, think that carrying by a CHL holder in churches is prohibited and will quote 46.035 and argue 'till the end of time that they're right? And that's an easy one. I'd love to see legislation implement a consolidation and and simplification act whereby all laws are condensed with all changes in one simple place. I'd hate to be part of the team tasked with starting the generations long effort to try to do the impossible.

[03Lightningrocks]

Great, full circle and no answer to a simple question. Nothing personal folks but I wonder at times if highly educated people,(notice I didn't say intelligent ), spend years in college learning how to avoid exposing their lack of real world knowledge while appearing to be smart. Don't get me wrong, this here ole chunk of coal spent enough money to buy a house sending one of you guys to law school. I get it. I love it. But it does not help me.

My business attorney refuses to indulge in the "criminal area" of the conversation because "it is not his area of expertise". He did say there may be a possible financial liability issue for my business if one of my people wound or kill an innocent while in my offices or even one of the neighboring offices while shooting in self defense. He advised me to resend the permission based on this alone. He believes that I would have been better off to have said nothing and made no policy forbidding concealed carry. By giving "permission" to open carry, it could be twisted around to say i was recommending it and possible creating a "dangerous" work environment. It is possible a harmed party could hold me responsible financially for a bad shoot. He thinks in terms of money. Even if I win in court, I lose monetarily.

So.... Is there anything in the law books that will cause me or my employees problems, "criminally", with us open carrying on my company property? I lease our space... In case that makes a difference.

He said he could do deeper research on the issue if I needed him to. This means for a fee in attorney speak. I am starting to regret giving permission for open carry. Legal or not, I think I am going to back it off. They all have CHL's anyway.