Carry at work without CHL?

[rm9792]

The way I interpret the law is that the protection of any private property or business can be entrusted to anyone at any time, at the property/business owner's discretion. Assuming that said person can legally own a firearm, this would mean that they were legally able to carry a firearm on the property they have been entrusted with protecting.

I suggest people read the Texas laws concerning private security before following that advice.

Unless you're a lawyer and that's legal advice.

"entrusted with protecting" doesnt necessarily mean actiong as a security guard. All employees of every company are entrusted with protecting company property. The stocker at walmart is not likely to look the other way while you pocket digital cameras or something. I would also venture that all employees have some semblance of "control" over the property. Wander in the back areas of a store and almost any employee is going to question you and/or chase you out. I understand your private security point but everywhere I have worked has basically stated, in writing usually, that "Security starts with You". Maybe I am nitpicking and twisting but thats what the law seems to be about.

[Hoi Polloi]

The way I interpret the law is that the protection of any private property or business can be entrusted to anyone at any time, at the property/business owner's discretion. Assuming that said person can legally own a firearm, this would mean that they were legally able to carry a firearm on the property they have been entrusted with protecting.

I suggest people read the Texas laws concerning private security before following that advice.

Unless you're a lawyer and that's legal advice.

"entrusted with protecting" doesnt necessarily mean actiong as a security guard. All employees of every company are entrusted with protecting company property. The stocker at walmart is not likely to look the other way while you pocket digital cameras or something. I would also venture that all employees have some semblance of "control" over the property. Wander in the back areas of a store and almost any employee is going to question you and/or chase you out. I understand your private security point but everywhere I have worked has basically stated, in writing usually, that "Security starts with You". Maybe I am nitpicking and twisting but thats what the law seems to be about.

I agree with RM with the qualification specific to the situation we're discussing that the weapons code says a person has to be in control of the premises, not of the property/assets.

I think denwego said it well:

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 darn 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.