That may be right, but I don't think we should be so quick to conclude that a person is not controlling the premises. Some on here seem to take the view that you have to be the top dog on the premises to control them; I would argue for a more expansive definition of control that would allow multiple people to control the premises at the same time. For example, if you are saying that the guy doesn't control the premises because his boss is on the scene, then does the boss lose his right to open carry when a higher-ranking boss walks through the door? Does that higher ranking boss lose his right when the owner walks through the door? I'd say that if the guy can tell people to leave the store, lock the doors, go places customers can't, has a locker, etc, he has a valid argument that he controls the premises, notwithstanding the fact that there is someone else above him with greater control.The Annoyed Man wrote:Premises were NOT under his control, they were under his BOSS's control.AlaskanInTexas wrote:To which his lawyer would probably respond:mr1337 wrote:AlaskanInTexas wrote:Agree it wasn't wise. Not entirely convinced that it was illegal (though there is enough support for it being illegal that I would never do it).He:Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.Checkmark in all 4 boxes violates 46.035. Sounds like a clear violation to me.
- Carried a handgun on or about his person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411 and
- Intentionally displayed the handgun
- In plain view of another person
- In a public place
He was not carrying under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411. He was on premises under his control, within the meaning of Tex Penal Code Sec. 46.02(a)(1).
I would never want to have to make that argument, because there are a slew of arguments for why the premises were not under his control. That's why I always feel a bit nervous for the gun store employees who openly carry.
Another example - say instead of being at work, the original poster was at his supervisor's house for a BBQ and wanted to show him his gun. Well if we conclude that his license to be on his supervisor's property doesn't give him some control over the premises, then showing the gun would be illegal. I'm sure this would make close to 100% of us criminals.