Non-CHL Carry at work

[WildBill]

you can indeed carry on the common portions of the apartment complex unless they state otherwise and if you are going to your car or vehicle they may not stop you, the common areas of the complex are considered a part of the residents property for the purposes of residents rights not advocating that ouy walk around the apartments without a CHL cause as is said you can't beat the ride.

but like everyone else says I am not a lawyer so I could be full of stuffing

IANAL either, but without a CHL I believe that you may be full of stuffing.

[JP171]

you could be right, but I do know of several people who do it and the resident police man knows and does nothing about it, but he might just be easy.

[tacticool]

you can indeed carry on the common portions of the apartment complex unless they state otherwise and if you are going to your car or vehicle they may not stop you, the common areas of the complex are considered a part of the residents property for the purposes of residents rights not advocating that ouy walk around the apartments without a CHL cause as is said you can't beat the ride.

The lease could be written to give residents control over common areas but it would be unusual. Residents usually have permission to use the common areas, but do not exercise control.

[StewNTexas]

I would check with the building manager/owner about adding a lock that can be locked from the inside. This is not a perfect solution, but would be of great help. Depending on the type of door, it might be possible for you to install a lock that would work.

[Dave2]

There is another option here... Until jtgchl's GF's CHL comes, he could show up towards the end of the day, "hide" in the back with something to pass the time, help her close up at the end of the day, and escort her to her car. She'd probably appreciate the help even after she has her CHL.

[denwego]

46.035. (3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The
term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk
or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

Some of my previous posts were off the mark. I was keying in on the words "employee and employer". So I if she is renting the space then she "could be" in control of her booth.

The thing that concerns me is the "common ground" areas. If you rent an apartment you can carry inside your apartment, but not on common grounds like the courtyard, laundromat, pool, etc. As jtgchl said, it would be hard to prove, but IANAL so don't take this as legal advice.

you can indeed carry on the common portions of the apartment complex unless they state otherwise and if you are going to your car or vehicle they may not stop you, the common areas of the complex are considered a part of the residents property for the purposes of residents rights not advocating that ouy walk around the apartments without a CHL cause as is said you can't beat the ride. in respose to the OP if she is a "contract" worker then she probably can't if she has a DBA or letter of incorperation for her business then she probaly can. the way that some of the salons do the beautician thing is funny they are contract workers that pay a fee to the owner of the salon for the use of a space, if the customer uses a credit card it goes thru the salons processor the salon gets a minimal ammount for the transaction to cover the fees they pay, the salon makes change and so forth makes the beautician a contract worker, if the owner says no weapons then its no weapons.


but like everyone else says I am not a lawyer so I could be full of stuffing

I really wish this were the case, so my fiancée could carry at night while walking the dog for now before her CHL shows up in the mail, but no dice:

Bryant v. State, 508 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 1074) Citing Wilson v. State, 418 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967), the court holds that a person located on the common areas of an apartment complex such as the parking lot is not on his own premises for purposes of the statute prohibiting carrying a pistol.

The court of appeals says that we have a right of access when it comes to the common areas, but it's not under our legal control. Good rule of thumb: if you can walk up to someone else on a chunk of property and say, "get out and never come back," and they have to obey, you have control of that property. Since you can't throw a fellow tenant out of the parking lot unilaterally, while say the landlord could, no control, which for §46.02 means no permitless carry.

[DFWTT]

I really wish this were the case, so my fiancée could carry at night while walking the dog for now before her CHL shows up in the mail, but no dice:

Bryant v. State, 508 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 1074) Citing Wilson v. State, 418 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967), the court holds that a person located on the common areas of an apartment complex such as the parking lot is not on his own premises for purposes of the statute prohibiting carrying a pistol.

The court of appeals says that we have a right of access when it comes to the common areas, but it's not under our legal control. Good rule of thumb: if you can walk up to someone else on a chunk of property and say, "get out and never come back," and they have to obey, you have control of that property. Since you can't throw a fellow tenant out of the parking lot unilaterally, while say the landlord could, no control, which for §46.02 means no permitless carry.

That's about as straightforward as it gets to lay the apartment argument to rest.

[JP171]

cool, I stand corrected and now more informed.

[Jules]

Just have her carry pepper spray until she gets her chl. Then there is no question about common areas. A gun locked in her station would be as helpful as using a silent whistle.

[3dfxMM]

I would think that if you are the only employee there and are locking up the shop at the end of the day you would be considered to be in control of the premises.

I would agree, but he never said that she was the only employee there closing up the shop.

I don't think it is relevant anymore based on other comments in the thread, but he did specifically say "she is usually the only one there while she closes" in his original post.

[Scott in Houston]

cool, I stand corrected and now more informed.

Wait wait wait. The Internet has no room for such a logical and civil response.

Ha. I love this forum. On any other forum you'd be almost obligated to argue back even when presented with clear cut facts.

[speedsix]

"...she is usually the only one there while she closes."
...this and the fact that she has a contractual relationship for her space, not an employee in a department store, makes me believe that she can carry to and from her car...she has the key, locks up at night...that's control...she's not an employee but a tenant...she's renting a small store, if you will, from a landlord...if she is discreet, noone should see it...even if she has to carry a bookbag and sit it by her sink, there's a way to work out the details and keep it close to her...if her landlord isn't posted or hasn't communicated to her NO GUNS...I think she's good to go...

...apartments can't stop you from carrying directly to and from your car and apartment...just anywhere else on the grounds...you have a right to move your property to and from your car...unless the lease says no guns on property and you agreed...

[Shoot Straight]

...apartments can't stop you from carrying directly to and from your car and apartment...

Where does it say they can't post 30.06 (CHL) and/or 30.05 (MPA, other) signs prohibiting guns?

[speedsix]

...30.06 prohibits a CHl from carrying on the property if they post the parking lots...but they can't keep their residents from carrying their property, including guns, from their cars to their homes NOT under authority of the CHL, unless the lease says so and the residents signed it agreeing...I've never heard of an apartment complex where it was illegal for residents to possess a handgun...YET...and 30.05 would not apply to a resident who had a contractual right to be on the property...

[WildBill]

I would think that if you are the only employee there and are locking up the shop at the end of the day you would be considered to be in control of the premises.

I would agree, but he never said that she was the only employee there closing up the shop.

I don't think it is relevant anymore based on other comments in the thread, but he did specifically say "she is usually the only one there while she closes" in his original post.

It's not relevant because she isn't an employee. She's a independent business person who is renting a space in a building.