TexasCHLforum.com

Renegade wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:
Based on my understanding of this, an example (admittedly a poor one) of the latter situation might be that you go to a store that is not posted in accordance with 30.06 and a sales clerk at the store says "Oh, we don't sell to people with a handgun." and then tries to have you charged for trespass. The sales clerk doesn't have the apparent authority to act on behalf of the owner in this regard (the store manager would, though), and the basis of the trespass claim is that you have a handgun.

I would be real careful challenging any employee as not having the authority to prohibit firearms. Also, "Oh, we don't sell to people with a handgun", will most likely be followed up with something like, "Guns are prohibited here", and that is now 30.06 oral.

It is only 30.06 if they have the authority or apparent authority to act on behalf of the owner.

TX_Jim wrote:... I do not carry in the building period. They would have to search my car. That being said, it would open a whole new discussion on consent to search and probable cause.

Suppose someone else was found to be carrying and to avoid termination or to bring as many people down with them or what ever, they tell managment about all the others who have a firearm in their vehicle. Do they conduct searches....do they get police involved to conduct searches? what laws would apply?

We've been around that block several times. A private party cannot search your vehicle without your consent, though they can refuse entry or tell you to leave if you don't agree. In the case of an employer, they can fire you.

It's quite a stretch for an employer to call the police and request an employee's car to be searched, but it has happened.

One thing to keep in mind is that employers, especially retail companies, do not want this kind of thing to get into the news. It has backfired on companies that did it.

You do point out good reasons not to talk about it at work.

- Jim

I have a headache now...there is a lot to think about.

Are there any case laws or AG opinons that adress this issue head on?

Mithras61 wrote: It is only 30.06 if they have the authority or apparent authority to act on behalf of the owner.

Any employee has the "apparent" authority to act on behalf of the owner.

If they work there and you don't, that's all the apparent authority they need. Any member of the general public has no basis whatsoev er to challange that.

If both people involved are employees, the one in authority (manager, supervisor, etc.) is the one who is acting on behalf of the owners.

And it doesn't matter who owns the grounds or building in fee simple. The leasee is in control of access, so they "own" it for the purposes of the statute.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Mithras61 wrote: It is only 30.06 if they have the authority or apparent authority to act on behalf of the owner.

Any employee has the "apparent" authority to act on behalf of the owner.

If they work there and you don't, that's all the apparent authority they need. Any member of the general public has no basis whatsoev er to challange that.

If both people involved are employees, the one in authority (manager, supervisor, etc.) is the one who is acting on behalf of the owners.

And it doesn't matter who owns the grounds or building in fee simple. The leasee is in control of access, so they "own" it for the purposes of the statute.

Okay, so you go to Walmart & a stockboy tells you you can't bring a gun there. Does the stock boy have apparent authority to act for the owner? I would suggest that he doesn't. I suppose it is possible that a sales clerk might (doubtful - I've been one and had no such authority), but ANY employee? I don't think that would really hold up, do you?

Mithras61 wrote:
It is only 30.06 if they have the authority or apparent authority to act on behalf of the owner.

Yes, but Joe CHL has almost no way to know who has authority or not, and you would be taking quite a risk to assume he does not, as he is probably going to be call the cops if you do not leave.

TX_Jim wrote:Are there any case laws or AG opinons that adress this issue head on?

Not that I know of, in Texas. 30.06 is rarely prosecuted. The number of convictions is less than 10 per year.

This was an issue in Oklahoma, where a couple of employers had employees fired for having weapons in their vehicles. I don't know the ins and outs of Oklahoma law in that regard. The state legislature since passed a car-carry law, which is currently tied up in court.

- Jim

Renegade wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:
It is only 30.06 if they have the authority or apparent authority to act on behalf of the owner.

Yes, but Joe CHL has almost no way to know who has authority or not, and you would be taking quite a risk to assume he does not, as he is probably going to be call the cops if you do not leave.

Actually, in most retail establishments, the name badges contain information about the employee's position in the company. I would expect that a sales clerk would have the authority to call a department or store manager, but not the police except at the direction of said manager.

But as I said in the original post, it was an admitedly poor example. It was the best I could do at the moment, and I thought I made it clear in the example that the person saying you had to leave did NOT have the authority to make such a call.

Mithras61 wrote: Okay, so you go to Walmart & a stockboy tells you you can't bring a gun there. Does the stock boy have apparent authority to act for the owner?

As far as you are concerned, absolutely.

Mithras61 wrote: I would suggest that he doesn't. I suppose it is possible that a sales clerk might (doubtful - I've been one and had no such authority), but ANY employee? I don't think that would really hold up, do you?

Yes, I do.

You can always ask to speak to a manager. But if an employee tells you that you have to go, ultimately, you have to go.

At that point, your further negotiations are best handled by writing a letter or trying to contact a manager on the phone.

It's not up to you as a member of the public to determine which employees have authority and which do not.

I would suggest that he doesn't. I suppose it is possible that a sales clerk might (doubtful - I've been one and had no such authority), but ANY employee? I don't think that would really hold up, do you?

I'm not sure how this all applies to CHL but if memory serves me (from back in the day of into to law in college) in tort law, employees are considered agents of the employer and as such the employer can be held liable for their employees actions. But as with anything else, there are some examples which the employer can distance themselves from the employees action for example if the employer shows that the employee acted on their own accord and against clearly defined policies.

Don't know if that is of any relevance to the argument about employees authority.

TX_Jim wrote: I'm not sure how this all applies to CHL but if memory serves me (from back in the day of into to law in college) in tort law, employees are considered agents of the employer and as such the employer can be held liable for their employees actions.

That sounds about right. And there is certainly no legal precedent for a CHL holder to decide if any given employee is high ranking enough to issue an order to leave the premesis or to tell them that they cannot carry a gun there.

If they are an employee and you are not, what they say goes. All you can do is argue about it later.