TexasCHLforum.com

JP171 wrote: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

JP171 wrote: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.

JP171 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

jtgchl wrote: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

denwego wrote: 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.

WildBill wrote:

3dfxMM wrote: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.

JP171 wrote:cool, I stand corrected and now more informed.

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

3dfxMM wrote:

WildBill wrote:

3dfxMM wrote: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.