TexasCHLforum.com

Fortunately, the problem was cleared up by Dru, so this is kind of moot for this case, but it may be important to another case.

Unfortunately, for oral notification, the law does not provide any specific wording. You might be right, but I would be very cautious about carrying anywhere after any type of notice from someone who might be in charge, even if it was based on a mistaken belief that they would be 51%. I do not know what the courts would accept as effective notice. If someone doesn't say you cannot but says something like "Oh, we don't allow guns in here" is that good enough? Or does it have to be personalized to the effect of "You cannot carry a gun in here"?

If someone tells me I cannot carry because they are a 51% location, and I look on the TABC website and it is not a 51% license, have I received notice or not? I really do not know what a court would say about this, so I would probably not carry after any kind of notice like that.

I would also not be one to question who has apparent authority,a s a general rule. The exception to this is the one Dru used, accurate knowledge of the location and its employees. But at a strange location, I would accept it from almost any employee. Even ones who I think are clearly wrong, like the recent Whataburger employees who told the off-duty police officers to leave because they were carrying. It isn't worth the risk to me.

Obviously, these are the guidelines I use and recommend but you are free to, and encouraged to, make your own decisions on this. I just hope we have all thought about this type of vague notice in advance so we know how to react.

lildave40 wrote:I am far from being a pro. But isnt being notified not to cc isnt that sufficient enough even though there is no signage? It sounds like the guy is making the rules up for the event.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Soccerdad1995 is correct that it depends on who is doing the asking. When I first posted that the guy saying no guns appeared to have the authority, I was basing it on the statement in the OP that "the guy in charge" called him to ask for help. He has since clarified that the person was not the organizer of the event or an officer of the church in any way.

The law required that the notice be from a person with the apparent authority to act for the owner. One of the keys to this is the wording "apparent authority". This means that if a person appears to have that power, the law applies, whether he really does or not. The converse is also true in that if he does not appear to have that power, the law does not make it so.

Examples of this would be if the minister came up and identified himself as the head of the church. He would then have the apparent authority. If he was in jeans on a work party that day and did not identify himself so that you would know he was not just some day laborer, the law would not cover him.

This is why my first assumption would have made it binding on me (he was in charge) but the OP would not be bound because of his greater knowledge of the church and its management.

Unless the church already has a TABC license, which seems unlikely, they will be getting a temporary permit from TABC for the event days only. IN most cases, temporary permits are sent as 51% permits because most charities selling beer make most of their money from the beer. Not all, but most. It will depend on how much beer they expected to be sold when they asked TABC for the license, along with how much of everything else.

Be prepared to not carry based on that. But also, I would think you just received effective notice from the organizer and I would think the courts would say he had the apparent authority to give you that notice. That also sounds to me like a no carry location for you that weekend.