TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

The owner prohibits guns in this instance. Apparently, the waiter wasn't granted the authority by the owner to control the property and make the decision to allow carry. The owner of the gun ranges, gun stores and other businesses can grant a certain amount of control to the employees in order for them to be allowed to carry or carry openly while in the property.

This really isn't that hard.

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.

They do control if/when you get refills and if your food is still hot when it reaches your table.

http://www.ksat.com/news/business-owner ... t-shooting

Owners of the iconic Little Red Barn Steakhouse on South Hackberry said the written policy they have employees sign doesn’t allow weapons on the premises, even if employees are licensed to carry.

Appears Ray'mon will be, and should be, facing charges. He violated the law and his employer's policy then stupidly endangered others by firing multiple shots.

The only positives I see in this story is no one was wounded or killed by his negligent shots and that Ray'mon doesn't have a LTC (and now likely won't be getting one either).

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.

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.

Just the opposite, it is not legal one has a LTC or been granted control of the property. You are ignoring the law that makes it illegal to carry when one is away from one's property.

SoConfused wrote:
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.

When I was a "talented lawyer" for 40 years, I found that when I could show facts and law to weave a common sense argument, it was easier to persuade the judge that I was right and accept my views.

It would be relatively easy, I think, to show with the examples I gave, and others that would occur to me in an actual situation, that the waiter had no control of the premises as that concept is used in the law.

I agree that sometimes the results are counterintuitive, mostly because a great many people have such novel and imaginative ideas about the laws and their interpretations, and little real knowledge, that their intuition often misses the mark.

You may be thinking of this waiter as working at some cafe for low wages and miserly tips. I don't know about the Little Red Barn. I've been there once. I wouldn't assume he can't afford proper competent representation. I have been astonished to find out what some waiters can make, sometimes more than "talented lawyers."

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.

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.

I agree with what you are saying. There is a difference between apparent authority to notify someone of the owner's gun policy and making that policy.

mojo84 wrote: I agree with what you are saying. There is a difference between apparent authority to notify someone of the owner's gun policy and making that policy.

Bingo!

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?

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.

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.

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.

That's for an LTC. This guy did not have a license. They have a blue sign.

Http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/sign_requirements.asp

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.