Return to “NOW Live Stream Williamson County leaders to answer gun law questions”
You don't have to go in.stingeragent wrote:How so? If both signs are posted I legally can't carry there. A criminal however doesn't care, so they can and will bring a firearm. I'm aware of the tueller drills but I'd rather defend firearm against firearm.
stingeragent wrote:They should just get rid of the 30.06 and 30.07 signs minus the prohibited places. If a business owner doesn't like firearms, so what. They are prohibiting me the right to defend myself against a criminal that could come in with a firearm that doesn't care about their signs. Even if I wasn't pro gun, I would never understand how people think that a sign on the window saying don't bring your guns in here, is going to prevent a crime with a gun from taking place. I would conclude there hasn't been a gun toting robber in the history of the earth that saw a no gun sign and turned around and decided to rob a place without a sign. I mean seriously, say that out loud. How can anyone that is not mentally insane not understand that regardless of if they love guns or hate them.
chuck j wrote:txglock21 wrote:Let me throw another wrinkle into this...What if you are HALFWAY through eating your meal and are told to leave now? Would you get up and walk out without paying OR ask for a "doggy bag" and stay long enough to pay the check? I was taught stealing is wrong, but if they wouldn't let me finish what I was paying for, I feel I don't need to pay for something I was "promised". And, yes, I realize that most likely you will be asked to leave before it gets to that point. Just food for thought. Pardon the semi-pun.
Go to your vehicle ...........disarm .........return and enjoy your meal .
casp625 wrote:Mojo, my comment wasn't directed at you but through various comments I've read throughout other threads. Then again, maybe I just inferred comments from other threads incorrectly.
No one has suggested asking for a manager is "arguing". If that is what you want to do, do it. If you want to make and issue of confirming the waiter actually has the authority to give you notice, that's your business. Hopefully, it won't be misinterpreted as you refusing to leave. Also, if the waiter is overridden, do you really want that person bringing your food to you? Nowhere have I or anyone said or insinuated that one "deserves" to lose their license for asking for clarification.I also disagree with the statement that a waiter can give you notice to leave.
stingeragent wrote:I wasn't intending my opinion to turn into an all out war on this thread. I was simply saying "I" don't think a waiter has the authority, however that doesn't mean I would stand there like a fool and refuse to leave. If an employee asks me to leave I would. Now whether I would think they actually had the right to do so is something different, but I'm not going to risk my license on it.
puma guy wrote:It would help if you can find his post. I'm sure Tilman Fertitta will be pleased his waiter have so much authority.mojo84 wrote:puma guy wrote:I guess your mojo just don't work for memojo84 wrote:puma guy wrote:The argument you make would mean the waiter sets policy on all those things you lay out and I assure you they don't.mojo84 wrote:How do you know he does not speak for the establishment. He is an employee and represents the establishment in its interactions with you. Do you accept the food he or she brings you? Do you accept if they tell you they don't take personal checks? What makes you think only a manger can tell you? Is that in the law or is that just how you want it to be?stingeragent wrote:I too disagree on the waiter thing. A waiter does not speak for the establishment. It is of my opinion that the authority person is the one making the rules. If the waiter can't say, ok it's time to close down the restaurant for the evening, they can't give you notice to leave. Same thing with a walmart cashier. They don't speak for the overall interests of the store. That is what managers are for.
No it doesn't. You are putting words in my mouth and or twisting what I said.
It means the person has the authority and duty to follow company policy. That policy may direct them to tell open carriers they have to cover up, leave or put your gun in your car.
A place can be sued if an employee makes a racist remark, harrasses or injures someone. I sell insurance policies that cover third party employment practices liability. If it couldn't happen, there wouldn't be an insurance policy covering it and it companies wouldn't buy it.
How can this be so hard to understand?
Neither does the law.Charles has commented on this previously. Maybe his will.
puma guy wrote:I guess your mojo just don't work for memojo84 wrote:puma guy wrote:The argument you make would mean the waiter sets policy on all those things you lay out and I assure you they don't.mojo84 wrote:How do you know he does not speak for the establishment. He is an employee and represents the establishment in its interactions with you. Do you accept the food he or she brings you? Do you accept if they tell you they don't take personal checks? What makes you think only a manger can tell you? Is that in the law or is that just how you want it to be?stingeragent wrote:I too disagree on the waiter thing. A waiter does not speak for the establishment. It is of my opinion that the authority person is the one making the rules. If the waiter can't say, ok it's time to close down the restaurant for the evening, they can't give you notice to leave. Same thing with a walmart cashier. They don't speak for the overall interests of the store. That is what managers are for.
No it doesn't. You are putting words in my mouth and or twisting what I said.
It means the person has the authority and duty to follow company policy. That policy may direct them to tell open carriers they have to cover up, leave or put your gun in your car.
A place can be sued if an employee makes a racist remark, harrasses or injures someone. I sell insurance policies that cover third party employment practices liability. If it couldn't happen, there wouldn't be an insurance policy covering it and it companies wouldn't buy it.
How can this be so hard to understand?
Charles has commented on this previously. Maybe his mojo will work better for you. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=78386&p=1003445&hil ... y#p1003445puma guy wrote:The argument you make would mean the waiter sets policy on all those things you lay out and I assure you they don't.mojo84 wrote:How do you know he does not speak for the establishment. He is an employee and represents the establishment in its interactions with you. Do you accept the food he or she brings you? Do you accept if they tell you they don't take personal checks? What makes you think only a manger can tell you? Is that in the law or is that just how you want it to be?stingeragent wrote:I too disagree on the waiter thing. A waiter does not speak for the establishment. It is of my opinion that the authority person is the one making the rules. If the waiter can't say, ok it's time to close down the restaurant for the evening, they can't give you notice to leave. Same thing with a walmart cashier. They don't speak for the overall interests of the store. That is what managers are for.
How do you know he does not speak for the establishment. He is an employee and represents the establishment in its interactions with you. Do you accept the food he or she brings you? Do you accept if they tell you they don't take personal checks? What makes you think only a manger can tell you? Is that in the law or is that just how you want it to be?stingeragent wrote:I too disagree on the waiter thing. A waiter does not speak for the establishment. It is of my opinion that the authority person is the one making the rules. If the waiter can't say, ok it's time to close down the restaurant for the evening, they can't give you notice to leave. Same thing with a walmart cashier. They don't speak for the overall interests of the store. That is what managers are for.
According to the law, all it takes is apparent authority. If they are an employee, there is no way for you to know what authority has been granted. I would not argue if the person is obviously an employee.puma guy wrote:I don't think a waiter would have authority to speak for the establishment. What if the waiter was irked because you asked extra bread and tells you to get out under threat of trespass if you fail to do so. I don't think 30.06 gives extra authority to a waiter nor a bus boy nor a sales clerk nor any one not put in a position of authority by management and/or owner at a retail establishment. The remarks by the panel on conflicts between a waiter and the manager show how silly that would be allow it. Monkeys running the circus comes to mind. IANAL so I could be wrongmojo84 wrote:Why do you think the waiter as an employee or agent of the business can't ask you to leave or cover up? I think he/she can.puma guy wrote:Yes. The Round Rock Training officer said government buildings were prohibited for CHL/OC. I was trying to figure out how to send a question via Facebook to ask him why he says that, but couldn't get it done. I also disagree with the statement that a waiter can give you notice to leave.Breny414 wrote:They seemed to be unclear about carry in a government building. I thought I heard them say that it was prohibited. Did anyone else catch that?
Why do you think the waiter as an employee or agent of the business can't ask you to leave or cover up? I think he/she can.puma guy wrote:Yes. The Round Rock Training officer said government buildings were prohibited for CHL/OC. I was trying to figure out how to send a question via Facebook to ask him why he says that, but couldn't get it done. I also disagree with the statement that a waiter can give you notice to leave.Breny414 wrote:They seemed to be unclear about carry in a government building. I thought I heard them say that it was prohibited. Did anyone else catch that?