TexasCHLforum.com

wrinkles wrote:Still waiting for the youtube vid.

Papa_Tiger wrote:The only way to fix this, if you want "businesses to abide by the law" is to remove the oral notification from both 30.06 and 30.07. That would force businesses to comply with the intent of the law and having a proper sign. The problem with removing oral notification is, unless there is a proper sign and you are carrying a handgun under authority of GC 411, there is no way at that point for the police to do anything. No crime has been committed as you aren't criminally trespassing if you haven't received notification per the statue and the police cannot physically remove you from the location as you would be protected from PC 30.05 based on the way it is written.

So, until this is "fixed" any sign that communicates that guns are not welcomed in the business means concealed carry, unless there is a properly posted 30.06 sign, in which case you should disarm or avoid the business entirely.

I'm disappointed that businesses will get away with posting non-legally binding signs and calling the police because THEY don't want to give verbal notice, effectively making the police their armed messengers, but there isn't much can be done about it until the 2017 legislative session.

K.Mooneyham wrote: I work in Oklahoma, and there don't seem to be problems up there with open or concealed carry.

gljjt wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: I work in Oklahoma, and there don't seem to be problems up there with open or concealed carry.

Oklahoma doesn't have OCT!

K.Mooneyham wrote:Well, it would seem at least one issue is businesses using the police to "do their dirty work". The law should state that the owner/operator of the establishment should have to give direct notice, via voice, to someone if they want them out of their establishment PRIOR to calling the police, unless they have posted the proper 30.07 sign.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the
property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice ...

GlassG19 wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:The only way to fix this, if you want "businesses to abide by the law" is to remove the oral notification from both 30.06 and 30.07. That would force businesses to comply with the intent of the law and having a proper sign. The problem with removing oral notification is, unless there is a proper sign and you are carrying a handgun under authority of GC 411, there is no way at that point for the police to do anything. No crime has been committed as you aren't criminally trespassing if you haven't received notification per the statue and the police cannot physically remove you from the location as you would be protected from PC 30.05 based on the way it is written.

So, until this is "fixed" any sign that communicates that guns are not welcomed in the business means concealed carry, unless there is a properly posted 30.06 sign, in which case you should disarm or avoid the business entirely.

I'm disappointed that businesses will get away with posting non-legally binding signs and calling the police because THEY don't want to give verbal notice, effectively making the police their armed messengers, but there isn't much can be done about it until the 2017 legislative session.

Last paragraph Papa_tiger for sure.

thetexan wrote:

Absolutely! For businesses anyway. For private non business property I can see a universal right to ask someone to leave your property but a business that is open to the public and must provide public accommodation is another matter.

tex

JALLEN wrote:

thetexan wrote:

Absolutely! For businesses anyway. For private non business property I can see a universal right to ask someone to leave your property but a business that is open to the public and must provide public accommodation is another matter.

tex

Public accommodation is not required to be provided. It may not be denied on the basis of the forbidden criteria, race, sex, religion, etc. You can deny service to a Chinese lesbian Buddhist who open carries.

ARS2nd wrote:"

And, if you think it has to be someone from the business, it doesn't

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the
property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice
to the person by oral or written communication;


The police DEFINITELY have that 'apparent' authority.

Not to be overly technical, but not necessarily. Why did the police respond? Was it a customer complaint or did the manager call? Who put the sign up? Was it from corporate (the business owner) or was it put up by a manager or other employee without authority of the business owner? If a business owner called the police, clearly the responding officers would have the apparent authority.

Having said that, I don't suggest "picking a fight" based on technicalities. If you innocently missed the sign that didn't meet the specs of the law, and the cops are there to arrest you for trespass, well, that is a whole other story.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I noticed this as well. "Apparent Authority" is a legal concept. Among other things, it generally means that the principal (owner in this case) is bound by the promises and is liable for the actions of the person who they allowed to possess apparent authority (the agent). I would be highly skeptical that a government agent has this level of authority for any particular business where they are not an owner or employee.

Charles - can you weigh in on this point? And does it work both ways? Can a LEO tell a CHL that they are authorized to carry past a valid 30.06 sign since they have apparent authority to act on the property owners' behalf?

mreed911 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I noticed this as well. "Apparent Authority" is a legal concept. Among other things, it generally means that the principal (owner in this case) is bound by the promises and is liable for the actions of the person who they allowed to possess apparent authority (the agent). I would be highly skeptical that a government agent has this level of authority for any particular business where they are not an owner or employee.

Charles - can you weigh in on this point? And does it work both ways? Can a LEO tell a CHL that they are authorized to carry past a valid 30.06 sign since they have apparent authority to act on the property owners' behalf?

Police have long been able to issue Criminal Trespass Warnings on behalf of an owner. Why would this change now?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Without knowing better, I would have assumed that police would need express authority to issue a valid criminal trespass warning (the owner asking the officer to please issue the warning), and not just apparent authority.

mreed911 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Without knowing better, I would have assumed that police would need express authority to issue a valid criminal trespass warning (the owner asking the officer to please issue the warning), and not just apparent authority.

Lots of places either place signs that give blanket (express) authority or have someone other than the owner working who has "apparent authority" meaning the officer isn't required to validate with the owner that the person controlling the property has given them authority, etc.

mojo84 wrote: I can't believe this argument over a scenario that didn't even happens is still going on.