Almost went to jail!!!

[goose]

Still waiting for the youtube vid.

Trouble maker. :-)

[GlassG19]

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.

Last paragraph Papa_tiger for sure.

[gljjt]

I work in Oklahoma, and there don't seem to be problems up there with open or concealed carry.

Oklahoma doesn't have OCT!

[K.Mooneyham]

I work in Oklahoma, and there don't seem to be problems up there with open or concealed carry.

Oklahoma doesn't have OCT!

Well, that is true...but even barring those antics, it's still night and day. Doesn't seem to be a lot of complaints about property rights being violated, either, in regards to firearms. If business owners in Texas want to be persnickety about firearms, I'll just end up spending more of my money north of the Red.

[C-dub]

Well, it would seem at least one issue is businesses using the police to "do their dirty work". The law should state that the owner/operator of the establishment should have to give direct notice, via voice, to someone if they want them out of their establishment PRIOR to calling the police, unless they have posted the proper 30.07 sign.

It pretty much does.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the
property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice ...

However, it doesn't say they have to do so before calling the police. I'm still wondering when LE acquired the authority or apparent authority to speak on behave of a business regarding their policies.

I think that in this situation, if it really happened at all, once the police determined the sign to not be correct, they should have just let the guy go and that be the end of it. They could tell the business owner/manager why they let him go if they want to, but there was no crime committed, so they had no further obligation that I'm aware of.

[thetexan]

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.

Last paragraph Papa_tiger for sure.

Absolutely! For businesses anyway. For private non business property I can see a universal right to ask someone to leave your property but a business that is open to the public and must provide public accommodation is another matter.

tex

[JALLEN]

Absolutely! For businesses anyway. For private non business property I can see a universal right to ask someone to leave your property but a business that is open to the public and must provide public accommodation is another matter.

tex

Public accommodation is not required to be provided. It may not be denied on the basis of the forbidden criteria, race, sex, religion, etc. You can deny service to a Chinese lesbian Buddhist who open carries.

[thetexan]

Absolutely! For businesses anyway. For private non business property I can see a universal right to ask someone to leave your property but a business that is open to the public and must provide public accommodation is another matter.

tex

Public accommodation is not required to be provided. It may not be denied on the basis of the forbidden criteria, race, sex, religion, etc. You can deny service to a Chinese lesbian Buddhist who open carries.

You're right. I meant business that deal with the public (as opposed to private membership businesses).

[Soccerdad1995]

"

And, if you think it has to be someone from the business, it doesn't

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the
property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice
to the person by oral or written communication;


The police DEFINITELY have that 'apparent' authority.

Not to be overly technical, but not necessarily. Why did the police respond? Was it a customer complaint or did the manager call? Who put the sign up? Was it from corporate (the business owner) or was it put up by a manager or other employee without authority of the business owner? If a business owner called the police, clearly the responding officers would have the apparent authority.

Having said that, I don't suggest "picking a fight" based on technicalities. If you innocently missed the sign that didn't meet the specs of the law, and the cops are there to arrest you for trespass, well, that is a whole other story.

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?

[mreed911]

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?

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[mreed911]

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.

Lots of places either place signs that give blanket (express) authority or have someone other than the owner working who has "apparent authority" meaning the officer isn't required to validate with the owner that the person controlling the property has given them authority, etc.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

Lots of places either place signs that give blanket (express) authority or have someone other than the owner working who has "apparent authority" meaning the officer isn't required to validate with the owner that the person controlling the property has given them authority, etc.

I completely agree with everything you are saying in this post. I think I may not be communicating my point clearly enough.

In the (possibly hypothetical) case that started this thread, there was no sign giving anyone express authority to issue a trespass warning on behalf of the property owner. I am guessing that there likely was a store manager or someone else present who had apparent (and possibly also real) authority to speak on behalf of the owner. If that person had given verbal notice, then I would agree 100% that a valid trespass warning had been given. If that person verbally agreed to pay me $100 for sweeping the floor of the store, I would think that the owner would be liable to pay me $100.

What I am questioning is how the LEO could have had apparent authority to speak on behalf of the owner. If the LEO had promised the OP $100 for sweeping the floor would the owner be liable to pay that $100? Or to use another example, if there was a valid 30.06 sign there could a rogue LEO tell the OP that he can carry past the sign, since the LEO has apparent authority to speak on behalf of the property owner?

[mojo84]

A cop is not necessarily and agent of the property owner. Applying the concept and law of agency does not apply here. The cop does not have to have a fiduciary responsibility for the property to have apparent authority to give notice. I believe the fact the 911 call was made by the property owner's representative for a person openly carrying conveys apparent authority. Plus, you don't know if the cops spoke to the manager or rep before approaching the open carried in this fictitious event.


I can't believe this argument over a scenario that didn't even happens is still going on.

[mreed911]

I can't believe this argument over a scenario that didn't even happens is still going on.

Good, constructive arguments can be very illustrative. This one brings up some good points and is staying civil.

I'm certainly no expert and lots of the replies present a perspective I didn't know.