TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If Michael Dell assumes control of the property, then yes. Either disarm or conceal your handgun of you are a CHL.

The statute clearly wants to allow a business owner to carry a gun, or an employee to whom control of the property has been entrusted. This is not an absurd result. In fact, business owners routinely leave their businesses temporary under the control of a trusted employee. If the legislature had intended to allow any employee to carry, with permission of the owner, then language to that effect would have been included.

Chas.

Is there any case law on this? (By that I mean whether "control" can be legally delegated to multiple people.) If not, we don't really know (for sure) what "control" means or whether it can be delegated to more than one person at a time.

I agree that the legislature could have adopted different language that would make the meaning more clear. But this wouldn't be the first time a statute was worded in a less than optimal way.

Xander wrote:I might change my own mind on this one, to some extent at least. Assuming that the clause in P.C. §46.15(b)(8) regarding the possession of firearms by folks with businesses that serve alcohol is designed to give them parity with other businesses, then it would appear that the intent of the law, at least, would limit control to those in designated supervisory roles. Though this would not necessarily limit carrying to a single person, it would seem to rule out the ability to authorize everyone to carry, and carry openly.

The bit of the law in question:

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(8) holds an alcoholic beverage permit or license or
is an employee of a holder of an alcoholic beverage permit or
license if the person is supervising the operation of the permitted
or licensed premises.

The thoughts of those with more legal qualifications than I would be appreciated.

This is an excellent example of what the legislature would have done, if they wanted to allow more than one employee to carry a handgun without a CHL.

Thanks for pointing this out. (I wish I had thought of this.)
Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The statute clearly wants to allow a business owner to carry a gun, or an employee to whom control of the property has been entrusted. This is not an absurd result. In fact, business owners routinely leave their businesses temporary under the control of a trusted employee. If the legislature had intended to allow any employee to carry, with permission of the owner, then language to that effect would have been included.

Chas.

So, you're saying that from a purely technical legal standpoint, a property or business owner doesn't have the authority to allow others to possess handguns on his or her property, correct? To ignore what would be realistically be prosecuted or considered to be a practical problem for a moment, what is being said is that for example, an adult child in possession of an unconcealed handgun in his parents house could technically be considered in violation of the law. Am I interpreting that correctly?

So the place has one license and three different bars in widely seperated rooms. (Each room plays a different genre of music.) Joe is the manager of one room and supervises it. Pete is the manager of another room and supervises it. And Frankie manages the third room and supervises it. There is no overall manager for the place. Each of the three guys takes care of his room.

Why can't they all carry?

Xander wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The statute clearly wants to allow a business owner to carry a gun, or an employee to whom control of the property has been entrusted. This is not an absurd result. In fact, business owners routinely leave their businesses temporary under the control of a trusted employee. If the legislature had intended to allow any employee to carry, with permission of the owner, then language to that effect would have been included.

Chas.

So, you're saying that from a purely technical legal standpoint, a property or business owner doesn't have the authority to allow others to possess handguns on his or her property, correct? To ignore what would be realistically be prosecuted or considered to be a practical problem for a moment, what is being said is that for example, an adult child in possession of an unconcealed handgun in his parents house could technically be considered in violation of the law. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Correct, there is no statutory authority for a property owner to authorize another person to violate TPC §46.02. This is exactly the same situation discussed some months ago when a homeowner wanted to "authorize" his friend to open carry in his home. Homeowners don't have the authority to allow a CHL to violate TPC §46.035(a).

"Control" is not an issue in one's home, whether you are the owner of record, or a family member. This is your "premises." Note that control only becomes an issue when it's not your premises.

Your post on TPC §46.15(b)(8) dealing with supervisors of bars, etc. is very instructive. In this situation, the Legislature determined that they wanted supervisory personnel to be able to carry a handgun. As written, this could be more than one person.

Chas.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So the place has one license and three different bars in widely seperated rooms. (Each room plays a different genre of music.) Joe is the manager of one room and supervises it. Pete is the manager of another room and supervises it. And Frankie manages the third room and supervises it. There is no overall manager for the place. Each of the three guys takes care of his room.

Why can't they all carry?

I believe in this scenario they can, but that's based upon TPC 46.15(b)(8) pointed out by Xander, not the "control" language of TPC 46.02.

Chas.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I agree that the legislature could have adopted different language that would make the meaning more clear. But this wouldn't be the first time a statute was worded in a less than optimal way.

Careful, I wrote it.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Correct, there is no statutory authority for a property owner to authorize another person to violate TPC §46.02. This is exactly the same situation discussed some months ago when a homeowner wanted to "authorize" his friend to open carry in his home. Homeowners don't have the authority to allow a CHL to violate TPC §46.035(a).

"Control" is not an issue in one's home, whether you are the owner of record, or a family member. This is your "premises." Note that control only becomes an issue when it's not your premises.

Your post on TPC §46.15(b)(8) dealing with supervisors of bars, etc. is very instructive. In this situation, the Legislature determined that they wanted supervisory personnel to be able to carry a handgun. As written, this could be more than one person.

Chas.

Excellent. Thank you for the clarification.

So to go back to my earlier post, all Carl needs to do is get his liquor license and name his associate pastors as supervisors, and all is good.

I bet he'd have record attendance on Superbowl Sunday, too.

KBCraig wrote:So to go back to my earlier post, all Carl needs to do is get his liquor license and name his associate pastors as supervisors, and all is good.

I bet he'd have record attendance on Superbowl Sunday, too.

carlson1 wrote:

KBCraig wrote:So to go back to my earlier post, all Carl needs to do is get his liquor license and name his associate pastors as supervisors, and all is good.

I bet he'd have record attendance on Superbowl Sunday, too.

Aside from the direct profit from the bar, you'd have one heckuva advantage during offering. Those in attendance who have already lubricated their wallets are certain to be more receptive to requests "for the children!".

KBCraig wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

KBCraig wrote:So to go back to my earlier post, all Carl needs to do is get his liquor license and name his associate pastors as supervisors, and all is good.

I bet he'd have record attendance on Superbowl Sunday, too.

Aside from the direct profit from the bar, you'd have one heckuva advantage during offering. Those in attendance who have already lubricated their wallets are certain to be more receptive to requests "for the children!".

and then there's the "usherettes" to pass the plate

KBCraig wrote: Aside from the direct profit from the bar, you'd have one heckuva advantage during offering. Those in attendance who have already lubricated their wallets are certain to be more receptive to requests "for the children!".

Sounds like the Parish of Dunkeld.

Or Tim Wilson's "First Baptist Bar & Grill".