TexasCHLforum.com

TexasTornado 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?

Any good lawyer is going to get that plead down to a misdemeanor offence. Depending on other factors such as the case load of the prosecuting attorney, he may even be able to walk out still eligible for the LTC he should have gotten in the first place.

Let's hope his LTC instructor tells him that it's never a good idea to fire "warning" shots.

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.