Hoi Polloi - You get at the crux of the matter. And you're right, control is a low standard. It can be granted by the owner, exercised in a practical way, implicitly present, or conjured up in court using legal fictions. Since it means so many things, I always like giving a list of examples rather than try to quote everything in the common law, because there's a LOT of them:
- You own a bit of land; you control that land.
- You rent some land or a building or a part of a building from the owner; you control those premises, with whatever stipulations are in the lease.
- You're alone in your friend's house with his permission; you control that house while he's gone.
- You're driving your cousin's car with his permission; you control that car (and everything in it... just try to say "I'm not in control of this car!" to a cop when he finds drugs in it )
- You're the manager of a business as the owner, or a higher manager, or the like tells you you're in charge for eight hours a day; you control that place.
- Your friend tells you explicitly that you're in control of his land, with whatever conditions he puts on you; you control that land with those conditions (a sort of verbal lease).
- Your dad lets you borrow his old set of golf clubs for the day; you control that property for that day, or essentially until you give it back.
Control of property is exercised independently of ownership (example - your landlord can't enter your leased apartment without your permission, unless there's something in the lease you agreed to); it's also intimately tied in with possession and custody (you're in your friend's house with his permission and he's not around, de facto leaving you in charge; or, the borrowed car example). Without a really huge post, a court would be terribly challenged to refute someone being on "property under the person's control" if the owner of that property stood up and says, "I've given Mr. X control of my property, to the point that he can carry a handgun on those permises." Even using a lower standard like preponderance of evidence in a civil setting, that's a damn near impossible thing for a prosecutor to disprove... how could you refute the owner saying that in open court, so to speak. All of this assumes the owner/leaseholder/dude-with-the-final-say explicitly allows it; a normal employee without explicit permission would not be reasonably assumed to have control over premises in a satisfactory way.
---
Personal example - When I went out of town about a year ago for a professional conference, my fiancée came over and walked the dog, watered the plants, and otherwise looked after the place. I left a note with my signature on it saying that she had my permission to be there, spend the night, etc. etc., in the remote-but-possible chance she'd need to call the police or the like. I specifically included on that paper that she could have and use my pistols while she was there, in case something happened. That's unnecessarily comprehensive, I admit, but it's pretty airtight at the same time.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Carry at work without CHL?”
- Tue May 03, 2011 10:59 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Carry at work without CHL?
- Replies: 31
- Views: 5903
- Mon May 02, 2011 5:33 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Carry at work without CHL?
- Replies: 31
- Views: 5903
Re: Carry at work without CHL?
I'd argue that anyone who owns or controls a property in a legally controlling way can "allow" someone to carry a handgun/illegal knife/club on their real property. One of the fundamental rights of owning property in the first place is the ability to devolve the powers you have in owning it down upon other people; they could hold a lease, or you could allow them to cut some wood, or tell them that they can allow others to do the same. It's inherent in having meaningful control that you can allow others to have meaningful control as well; that's how a business owner can appoint a manager to run a store, whether he's absent or not.
I'd argue that if I own a home and the land it's on, and I want to let someone carry a handgun on my land, I can grant them whatever control be necessary for them to do just that. Hell, for you "wrap not the ride" crowd, imagine it playing out in court:
Prosecutor - The defendant was carrying a handgun on your land without a permit.
Owner - Yep, I gave him whatever control over my property needed to carry one.
Prosecutor - You can't do that.
Owner - It's my land. I granted him a verbal lease for entirely and exclusively for that purpose. Please prove that I didn't, or that I can't.
Prosecutor - ....
---
That said, this is NOT to let someone be a security guard without the proper licensure, since that's a whole other deal. But I think my point holds quite a bit of water, though IANAL
I'd argue that if I own a home and the land it's on, and I want to let someone carry a handgun on my land, I can grant them whatever control be necessary for them to do just that. Hell, for you "wrap not the ride" crowd, imagine it playing out in court:
Prosecutor - The defendant was carrying a handgun on your land without a permit.
Owner - Yep, I gave him whatever control over my property needed to carry one.
Prosecutor - You can't do that.
Owner - It's my land. I granted him a verbal lease for entirely and exclusively for that purpose. Please prove that I didn't, or that I can't.
Prosecutor - ....
---
That said, this is NOT to let someone be a security guard without the proper licensure, since that's a whole other deal. But I think my point holds quite a bit of water, though IANAL