TexasCHLforum.com

mreed911 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

mreed911 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

Yes, but the mere act of calling the police does not, in and of it self, confer authority. An affirmative step is required for such delegation.

Care to cite the law for that?

You can't possibly be asking me to prove a negative.

Look how carefully the court addressed the authority here, noting that it was specifically granted. That's a major point in upholding the conviction.

thetexan wrote:Can you cite some of that case law please.

tex

An apartment manager has a superior right to the property against a non-tenant.
Further, an apartment manager can delegate to security personnel or other agents the authority
to exclude people from the property. State v. Jackson, 849 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.);

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

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?

I am just questioning the specific terminology of "someone with apparent authority". IANAL, and am more used to contract interpretations than anything related to criminal law, but as applied to contracts, someone with apparent authority can legally obligate the principal to a contract, include obligations to perform a service, pay monies, etc. It just seems very odd that a property owner would want an average LEO to have this level of authority.

I am particularly interested in whether this same term has a different meaning in the context of Texas CHL laws.

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.

TexasTornado wrote:

WildBill wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So is verbal notice effective forever?
I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

This is an interesting question....if he goes back I suppose we'll get our answer. I sure wouldn't be willing to be the test case!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So is verbal notice effective forever?

Yes.

locke_n_load wrote:I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

It would be, but not for anyone who received verbal notice.

Chas.

Is there a case study or penal code that states the notice is permanent? Might be the college student talking, but I need refferences to substantiate facts vs opinions.

Ruark wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Ruark wrote:This is only getting started. I suspect a legislative approach is going to be needed. Would anybody care to suggest what kind of language could be in a proposed bill that would address this situation? This sort of thing has to be started EARLY - contacts and visits made, drafts written up, etc. before the next session's committees start meeting.

Ruark - You don't have a band nor do you have a wagon to jump on to.

Gosh yes, Bill, it's so nice to see people willing to step up to the plate and take the lead. I'll stand down and let you take point.

TexasTornado wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So is verbal notice effective forever?
I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

This is an interesting question....if he goes back I suppose we'll get our answer. I sure wouldn't be willing to be the test case!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So is verbal notice effective forever?

Yes.

locke_n_load wrote:I have a feeling that a business can remove a sign and then carry would be legal. What about verbal notice?

It would be, but not for anyone who received verbal notice.

Chas.

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.

Ruark wrote:This is only getting started. I suspect a legislative approach is going to be needed. Would anybody care to suggest what kind of language could be in a proposed bill that would address this situation? This sort of thing has to be started EARLY - contacts and visits made, drafts written up, etc. before the next session's committees start meeting.

gljjt wrote:This will self resolve. After LE goes to the same business that has clearly non-compliant signs to act as their enforcer a few times, I'm sure LE will suggest the business owner put up the correct sign as their response will change. Might tell the owner to tell the customer tho leave!

Ruark wrote:This is awkward. I wouldn't OC past that sign, yet at the same time it's not legal. I don't want to get into a face-to-face with a cop. But if we take that approach, we won't OC past ANY no-guns sign, 30.07 or gunbuster or whatever.

Question: what legislation could be proposed for the next session that would resolve this? Throw some ideas at me.

chuck j wrote:No one seems to want to respond . We have individual beliefs . 30/40 years ago an individual's beliefs most likely would have been respected , don't have to agree .........just respect . Respect is about dead , part of the great shame of us as a society . It's hard at times but remember RESPECT , we all are entitled to it as individuals . Study respect ............you need not change your own thoughts but ...........respect ...........the thoughts of others like you . It's thought provoking , wow ! Being able to accept anthers beliefs ..........without hate and selfishness .............living our lives side by side . Might think about it ?