TexasCHLforum.com

WTR wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

WTR wrote:I think he should be charged with unlawful carry. If the restaurant serves alcohol, that is a felony, as has been pointed out.

Is it a Felony if the bar and eatery are separate and the bar is posted?

The restaurant's website shows beer, wine and margaritas (liquor) for sale.

I was taught the restaurant had to make over 51% of it'so revenue before you could not CC.

Flightmare wrote:

SoConfused wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

I think you are confused. It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there.

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

An employee in that case is relaying/repeating the instructions/wishes of the person in authority. This does not mean that the employee has apparent authority.

SoConfused wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

SoConfused wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

I think you are confused. It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there.

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

That is a fairly extreme interpretation of what reality most often is.

You say the waiter had "control" of a section he worked in. What did he control? Not who sat in his section. The host or hostess decides which patrons go to which tables, usually. The waiter has no control over what food or drinks the guests will ask for, or be offered. The waiter has no control over what tables and chairs the patrons have to sit at or who they sit next to or what they discuss. Nor does a waiter control what prices they are to be charged for the items they order. The waiter has no control over the patrons who may sit, walk around, go to restrooms, out to their cars, return, eat and drink as they like or not, etc. as they please.

What exactly might a waiter "control?" I haven't thought of anything. I guess if another waiter enters "his area" he can complain to the management or something.

I think you guys are using too much common sense. Unfortunately, the law is often counterintuitive an void of common sense. I'm this case, "control" and "premises" we're not specifically defined, leaving a talented lawyer the freedom to use case law and his imagination to create a definition.

The only variable here is the quality of defense and ability to pay for it. A waiter may not have enough money to buy his verdict, but that doesn't change the fact that it is legal until proven otherwise.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

I think you are confused. It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there.

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.

It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.

Where in the law is an unlicensed person allowed to carry a handgun off their property or property in their control? Since he was at work, he can't even argue he was traveling.

They may not charge him for the unlawful carry but I bet they do charge him for unlawful discharge. However, just because they may not charge him with unlawful carry, it doesn't mean hee want breaking the law.

I think he should be charged with unlawful carry. If the restaurant serves alcohol, that is a felony, as has been pointed out.

But playing devil's advocate to my belief, if the employer explicitly allowed employees to carry guns, then he might be OK. I'm thinking of the practice at just about every public range where employees openly carried guns prior to OC going into effect in January. The only way that was legal is if every employee at that range was "in control" of the premises by virtue of being an employee at a place where the owner explicitly granted permission to carry. Since LEO's are regular visitors at most ranges and (to my knowledge) no employee was ever arrested for illegally openly carrying, LEO's in general must believe that it is OK for them to do so.

SoConfused wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

I think you are confused. It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there.

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.

It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.

SoConfused wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

I think you are confused. It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there.

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

The shooting, which was caught on camera, showed the waiter firing three rounds at the wall. Some people at the restaurant said the server was verbally and physically assaulted after he brought out the wrong order.