TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:

SoConfused wrote:
I think you guys are using too much common sense. Unfortunately, the law is often counterintuitive an void of common sense. I'm this case, "control" and "premises" we're not specifically defined, leaving a talented lawyer the freedom to use case law and his imagination to create a definition.

The only variable here is the quality of defense and ability to pay for it. A waiter may not have enough money to buy his verdict, but that doesn't change the fact that it is legal until proven otherwise.

When I was a "talented lawyer" for 40 years, I found that when I could show facts and law to weave a common sense argument, it was easier to persuade the judge that I was right and accept my views.

It would be relatively easy, I think, to show with the examples I gave, and others that would occur to me in an actual situation, that the waiter had no control of the premises as that concept is used in the law.

I agree that sometimes the results are counterintuitive, mostly because a great many people have such novel and imaginative ideas about the laws and their interpretations, and little real knowledge, that their intuition often misses the mark.

You may be thinking of this waiter as working at some cafe for low wages and miserly tips. I don't know about the Little Red Barn. I've been there once. I wouldn't assume he can't afford proper competent representation. I have been astonished to find out what some waiters can make, sometimes more than "talented lawyers."

Thanks for providing your experienced perspective. I understand and perhaps I'm a bit jaded because my experience with the legal system has taught me that common sense is always thrown out in favor of an interpretation of the law biased to whoever had the most money.

I'm going to try to convey my experience here, while being careful of wording so please bear with me. Sadly, I'll spend the rest of my life making up for the person I used to be, but I was always at fault and never held accountable.

I was always the one with the money, which seemed to buy an infinite number of chances and allow my representation to interpret things as creatively as they wanted. I usually ended up relieved, while simultaneously being disgusted with the system. I always pictured myself in the other party's place having to deal with such an injustice and it made me sick about who I was.

If he throws good money into his defense and is still held accountable, which I hope he is, I may start to feel better about the courts. However, I'm not holding my breath.

JALLEN wrote:

SoConfused wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

I think you are confused. It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there.

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

That is a fairly extreme interpretation of what reality most often is.

You say the waiter had "control" of a section he worked in. What did he control? Not who sat in his section. The host or hostess decides which patrons go to which tables, usually. The waiter has no control over what food or drinks the guests will ask for, or be offered. The waiter has no control over what tables and chairs the patrons have to sit at or who they sit next to or what they discuss. Nor does a waiter control what prices they are to be charged for the items they order. The waiter has no control over the patrons who may sit, walk around, go to restrooms, out to their cars, return, eat and drink as they like or not, etc. as they please.

What exactly might a waiter "control?" I haven't thought of anything. I guess if another waiter enters "his area" he can complain to the management or something.

I think you guys are using too much common sense. Unfortunately, the law is often counterintuitive an void of common sense. I'm this case, "control" and "premises" we're not specifically defined, leaving a talented lawyer the freedom to use case law and his imagination to create a definition.

The only variable here is the quality of defense and ability to pay for it. A waiter may not have enough money to buy his verdict, but that doesn't change the fact that it is legal until proven otherwise.

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

I think you are confused. It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there.

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.

It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.

mojo84 wrote:

SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

I think you are confused. It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Ha! I like what you did there.

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

He took quite a stupid risk discharging his weapon without being sure of the backstop and will probably lose his job due to the company's gun policy.

However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.