NOW Live Stream Williamson County leaders to answer gun law questions

[gljjt]

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.

I think the establishment decides who has authority. If the owner/franchisee/manager tell the waiters to give oral notice to those who OC, I'd say failure to comply = ride in the police car. You refer to the 'authority person'. I don't think that has to be singular.

[stingeragent]

I definitely agree with you. Unless they post their policy somewhere there is 100% no way to know. A waiter could have been informed by the owner to tell open carriers to leave. That would be justified. At the same time though, you may have a waiter that is a member of MDA that sees your gun and tells you to leave even though the owner is pro gun which is why they aren't posted 30.07. Ultimately though none of it matters. I think the vast majority of stores have the policy regardless of if you have a gun or not, if they ask you to leave the premises, you are required to. The whole we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. I for one am not gonna stay and argue, carrying or not, either way.

Edit: I honestly think it would be better if there was no oral notice. Should be you post the signs or you don't. That would get rid of the gray area in that aspect of it. A lot of this is just blown out of proportion a bit though I think. I would "assume" in most instances, if this issue came up the waiter, or whoever would go notify their manager who would then deal with it.

[MasterOfNone]

When I have searched for explanations of "apparent authority," what I found (though I don't recall the particular places I found info) indicated that a person has apparent authority to do something if he is in a position that would normally do that thing. For example, if a fan is being obnoxious at a baseball game, the peanut vendor isn't the person who would normally eject the fan. But an usher may be. So the usher may have apparent authority while Mr. Peanut wouldn't.
What gets lost in a lot of these discussions is that in the context of 30.06 and 30.07, we are not talking about authority to MAKE a policy; we are talking about authority to NOTIFY you of the policy. So who in a business has apparent authority to notify you of a store policy? I believe both a waiter and a Walmart greeter do.

[puma guy]

When I have searched for explanations of "apparent authority," what I found (though I don't recall the particular places I found info) indicated that a person has apparent authority to do something if he is in a position that would normally do that thing. For example, if a fan is being obnoxious at a baseball game, the peanut vendor isn't the person who would normally eject the fan. But an usher may be. So the usher may have apparent authority while Mr. Peanut wouldn't.
What gets lost in a lot of these discussions is that in the context of 30.06 and 30.07, we are not talking about authority to MAKE a policy; we are talking about authority to NOTIFY you of the policy. So who in a business has apparent authority to notify you of a store policy? I believe both a waiter and a Walmart greeter do.

My first comment was only that I didn't think a waiter could order you to leave under 30.06 oral notification. Part of the streaming discussion included a scenario of a waiter telling a patron to leave and the manager being at odds with that. That was part of one of my posts and was the basis of my original comment. My point: a waiter can't establish policy. The discussion morphed into - the waiter can follow the owner's policy and under apparent authority tell a patron to leave. I don't disagree, but that's not where the discussion began; I also stated if a waiter told me to leave I would do so. Realistically an establishment that had an anti-carry policy would most likely be posted.

[casp625]

When I have searched for explanations of "apparent authority," what I found (though I don't recall the particular places I found info) indicated that a person has apparent authority to do something if he is in a position that would normally do that thing. For example, if a fan is being obnoxious at a baseball game, the peanut vendor isn't the person who would normally eject the fan. But an usher may be. So the usher may have apparent authority while Mr. Peanut wouldn't.
What gets lost in a lot of these discussions is that in the context of 30.06 and 30.07, we are not talking about authority to MAKE a policy; we are talking about authority to NOTIFY you of the policy. So who in a business has apparent authority to notify you of a store policy? I believe both a waiter and a Walmart greeter do.

Ok, then these questions should be easily answered:

1) A store has a sign posted that says "GUNS WELCOME HERE" but the waiter/greeter/employee hates guns and gives you verbal notice that guns are not allowed and ask you to leave or they are calling the cops, are the acting with apparent authority in overriding the posted sign?

2) A store has a policy that allows for guns to be carried, not publicly posted, but you asked a manager previously if guns are banned and they said no. A waiter/greeter/employee hates guns and notices you carrying and asks you to leave or they are calling the cops. Are they acting with apparent authority?

3) A store has a policy that allows for guns to be carried, but not publicly posted. A waiter/greeter/employee hates guns and notices you carrying and asks you to leave or they are calling the cops. Are they acting with apparent authority?

4) A business has stores in every state and their gun policy is to follow whatever the state law is. A waiter/greeter/employee hates guns and notices you carrying and asks you to leave or they are calling the cops. Are they acting with apparent authority?

[MasterOfNone]

The statutes use "apparent authority" because we don't know who has authority, and it is not our place to figure it out.

Ok, then these questions should be easily answered:

You know these questions aren't easy. That's why we're discussing the issue. Here are my opinions.

1) A store has a sign posted that says "GUNS WELCOME HERE" but the waiter/greeter/employee hates guns and gives you verbal notice that guns are not allowed and ask you to leave or they are calling the cops, are the acting with apparent authority in overriding the posted sign?

Yes. But you could argue that the sign gives consent, meaning 30.07(a)(1) is not met.

2) A store has a policy that allows for guns to be carried, not publicly posted, but you asked a manager previously if guns are banned and they said no. A waiter/greeter/employee hates guns and notices you carrying and asks you to leave or they are calling the cops. Are they acting with apparent authority?

Yes.

3) A store has a policy that allows for guns to be carried, but not publicly posted. A waiter/greeter/employee hates guns and notices you carrying and asks you to leave or they are calling the cops. Are they acting with apparent authority?

Yes.

4) A business has stores in every state and their gun policy is to follow whatever the state law is. A waiter/greeter/employee hates guns and notices you carrying and asks you to leave or they are calling the cops. Are they acting with apparent authority?

Yes.

How do we know if a policy has changed? What if the owner told the employees "I'm tired of these OC demonstrations; tell everyone that we don't allow open carry any longer"? We have to rely on the apparent authority of the employees to notify.

[stingeragent]

We honestly need some case law to iron this out. As it stands there is no way to definitively know who has authority or not. I'm always going to err on the side of caution and leave, but does the person who tells me to leave have the legal right? We don't know. If you think of Murphy's law, for every pro gun person, there is going to be someone anti-gun there to impose their beliefs on others even if their company gives them no right to do so. I've seen MDA protest where they called 911 when open carry protesters showed up because they felt threatened by guns when the open carry people weren't even carrying guns. I'm not saying resist every employee that tells you to leave, but there are gonna be circumstances where an anti-gun employee is going to tell you to leave based on their own belief's even if it is opposed to what the company policy is. As I said before, it should be a sign or no sign policy. The waiter doesn't make the decision to post signs on the property, and so by relying on just signage, that would eliminate the opinion of anyone except the person in charge of that establishment.

[Glockster]

I've read several of these kind of threads but still find them lacking. Firstly, let me establish that if told to leave, I will do so. Secondly, I will not go to anyplace that does not want my business.

Okay, that out of the way, here's my issue - what bothers me to some degree is that these threads all sound like (sound like) that if I'm in a restaurant, for example, and then unexpectedly am asked to leave...that (sounds like) my options are leave or argue? That's it? What about saying something like sure I will absolutely leave but I'd appreciate it if I could also speak with the manager - is he/she available?

I've read through these threads and honestly don't recall that given as what someone might do. Instead it sounds like it always moves from some server asks you to leave and there is no attempt to clarify the situation and it is either leave or fight at risk of losing your license. I would rather politely state that I will comply and then also politely ask for that opportunity. I've found many times over the years that someone who thought they were speaking with authority, weren't at all and in fact the manager needed to know that.

[chuck j]

You can give an employee any power or authority to make decisions and act in your behalf but you are responsible for those decisions .

[casp625]

I've read several of these kind of threads but still find them lacking. Firstly, let me establish that if told to leave, I will do so. Secondly, I will not go to anyplace that does not want my business.

Okay, that out of the way, here's my issue - what bothers me to some degree is that these threads all sound like (sound like) that if I'm in a restaurant, for example, and then unexpectedly am asked to leave...that (sounds like) my options are leave or argue? That's it? What about saying something like sure I will absolutely leave but I'd appreciate it if I could also speak with the manager - is he/she available?

I've read through these threads and honestly don't recall that given as what someone might do. Instead it sounds like it always moves from some server asks you to leave and there is no attempt to clarify the situation and it is either leave or fight at risk of losing your license. I would rather politely state that I will comply and then also politely ask for that opportunity. I've found many times over the years that someone who thought they were speaking with authority, weren't at all and in fact the manager needed to know that.

I've read those threads too and the majority of the forum members here have stated once you are asked to leave, regardless of who asked you, that you must do so immediately or be prepared to face the consequences (i.e. Class A misdemeanor). Asking for a manager or for further clarification, even if you were intent on leaving, was deemed *arguing* and it seemed to me that those individuals insinuated that maybe you deserve to lose your license for your *argumentative* attitidue

[chuck j]

I've read several of these kind of threads but still find them lacking. Firstly, let me establish that if told to leave, I will do so. Secondly, I will not go to anyplace that does not want my business.

Okay, that out of the way, here's my issue - what bothers me to some degree is that these threads all sound like (sound like) that if I'm in a restaurant, for example, and then unexpectedly am asked to leave...that (sounds like) my options are leave or argue? That's it? What about saying something like sure I will absolutely leave but I'd appreciate it if I could also speak with the manager - is he/she available?

I've read through these threads and honestly don't recall that given as what someone might do. Instead it sounds like it always moves from some server asks you to leave and there is no attempt to clarify the situation and it is either leave or fight at risk of losing your license. I would rather politely state that I will comply and then also politely ask for that opportunity. I've found many times over the years that someone who thought they were speaking with authority, weren't at all and in fact the manager needed to know that.

I've read those threads too and the majority of the forum members here have stated once you are asked to leave, regardless of who asked you, that you must do so immediately or be prepared to face the consequences (i.e. Class A misdemeanor). Asking for a manager or for further clarification, even if you were intent on leaving, was deemed *arguing* and it seemed to me that those individuals insinuated that maybe you deserve to lose your license for your *argumentative* attitidue

Agreed , if you feel convicted enough go to your vehicle and disarm then proceed with your seeking higher authority to confirm the employee's actions .

[txglock21]

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.

[mojo84]

The spinning and backtracking in this thread is quite humorous. Puma, here is your exact quote that started this. It said nothing about a waiter making policy. It addressed giving notice. The only morphing this thread has done was by you trying to spin and twist the comments to justify your original comment and make the law fit what you want.

I also disagree with the statement that a waiter can give you notice to leave.

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.

Whether you like it or not, all it takes is "apparent" authority. It does not say anything about actual authority. You guys seem to want to make the two same and they are not.

[MasterOfNone]

Of course you can always seek discussion with a higher authority within the business. Its lack of mention in my responses was not intended to imply that it is not an option; I assume it is always an option. But choosing to seek such higher authority doesn't change the fact that you received notice until that higher authority corrects that notice and grants permission.
So to expand the statement of my opinion, if the waiter notifies me that I cannot have my gun in the restaurant, I will comply. If I believe he is wrong about their policy, I will ask for the manager on my way out and meet him at the door.

[casp625]

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.