Killeen Daily Herald News highlights Texas Open Carry petition

imported post

Fatherof9 wrote:

Why? What authority can you cite to allow you to extend your privilege to carry?

Click to expand...

I have read in the code that the owner or controller of the premises can allow open carry. If I remember right it had to be specifically allowed by a written policy manual. I have looked for that in the code again and have not yet found it.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is not in the code, and not even in case law - if you can find the authority, let us know - right now I am going to have to assume it is unlawful to open carry in any public place in Texas, even if invited to do so by owner.

we would like to hold some open carry rallies in Texas on private property - but not till it can be saeen to be lawful.

imported post

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

§ 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control;

As the owner or person in control ofsaid property, I can extend any privilege of use to anyone I choose to the extent of my property with the assumption of liability for their actions.

Click to expand...

Why? What authority can you cite to allow you to extend your privilege to carry?

Click to expand...

Mike,

The rights of the property owner have long been upheld this way. I can authorize anyone I wish to watch out for my interest on my property. I can also rent, lease or givecontrol of my property to another and through such actionthat person is considered to have control of that property and is covered under the premises underthe person'scontrol portion of the law.

This fact is expressly upheld as to the application of 46.02 to businesses and employees in section 46.15 Nonapplicability part (B)(2), which states:

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or property, in which event the person must comply with Subdivision (5);


In other words, the only way an employee is NOT considered exempt from 46.02 by this section is if that person is 1) an employee, and 2) their main job function is to provide security to protect persons or property. In the case of a gun counter employee,their main job function is to provide sales assistance (not security), thus, they are still considered exempt from the application of 46.02 under this section.

Likewise, if the person is not an employee, i.e. just a person I allow on my property and allow to carry while there, they too are exempt from 46.02 under this section. In short, the only person not exempt from the application of 46.02 by 46.15(B)(2) is a person paid to provide security services to the facility as their primary duty. All other persons are exempt as being on premises under their control by the authorization of the person in control of the property.

Doc

imported post

Mike wrote:

Fatherof9 wrote:

Why? What authority can you cite to allow you to extend your privilege to carry?

Click to expand...

I have read in the code that the owner or controller of the premises can allow open carry. If I remember right it had to be specifically allowed by a written policy manual. I have looked for that in the code again and have not yet found it.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is not in the code, and not even in case law - if you can find the authority, let us know - right now I am going to have to assume it is unlawful to open carry in any public place in Texas, even if invited to do so by owner.

we would like to hold some open carry rallies in Texas on private property - but not till it can be saeen to be lawful.

Click to expand...

Open carry rallies are perfectly legal as long as they are held on private property or in a leased or rented building where the carry is contained in the controlled area. This is no different than holding a gun show and allowing those attending to carry openly or the dealers to carry to protect their interests. All that is required is that it be in a controlled use area.


As the previous poster pointed out, it is an almost universal practice for every employee in a gun shop here in Texas to be open carrying (or insome cases, concealed carrying) a handgun.If it were not legal I assure you it would not be happening in the DFW or Houston areas as it does.

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

§ 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control;

As the owner or person in control ofsaid property, I can extend any privilege of use to anyone I choose to the extent of my property with the assumption of liability for their actions.

Click to expand...

Why? What authority can you cite to allow you to extend your privilege to carry?

Click to expand...

Mike,

The rights of the property owner have long been upheld this way. I can authorize anyone I wish to watch out for my interest on my property. I can also rent, lease or givecontrol of my property to another and through such actionthat person is considered to have control of that property and is covered under the premises underthe person'scontrol portion of the law.

This fact is expressly upheld as to the application of 46.02 to businesses and employees in section 46.15 Nonapplicability part (B)(2), which states:

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or property, in which event the person must comply with Subdivision (5);


In other words, the only way an employee is NOT considered exempt from 46.02 by this section is if that person is 1) an employee, and 2) their main job function is to provide security to protect persons or property. In the case of a gun counter employee,their main job function is to provide sales assistance (not security), thus, they are still considered exempt from the application of 46.02 under this section.

Likewise, if the person is not an employee, i.e. just a person I allow on my property and allow to carry while there, they too are exempt from 46.02 under this section. In short, the only person not exempt from the application of 46.02 by 46.15(B)(2) is a person paid to provide security services to the facility as their primary duty. All other persons are exempt as being on premises under their control by the authorization of the person in control of the property.

Doc

Click to expand...

The statute you cite clearly stands for the opposite of what your state as to non-owners who are not employees. The fact that the statute sets forth an employee exception would most likley be read under standard rules of statutory construction to ban others from carrying handguns on private property.

You need to find an authority to back up your claim.

imported post

Mike wrote:

The statute you cite clearly stands for the opposite of what your state as to non-owners who are not employees. The fact that the statute sets forth an employee exception would most likley be read under standard rules of statutory construction to ban others from carrying handguns on private property.

You need to find an authority to back up your claim.

Click to expand...

No mike, read it again...carefully.

It states that EXCEPT for an employee who is a paid security gaurd.

Doc

imported post

The statute clearly applies to all, including employees, EXCEPT for an employee who's primary function is that of security guard. If the person is not a paid security guard, they are exempt from application of 46.02 by 46.15.

It also includes security guards if they meet subsec. 5 reguarding security guards.

Again, as the previous poster pointed out, it is an almost universal practice for every employee in a gun shop here in Texas to be open carrying (or insome cases, concealed carrying) a handgun.If it were not legal I assure you it would not be happening in the DFW or Houston areas as it does.

Doc

imported post

Mike wrote:

The statute you cite clearly stands for the opposite of what your state as to non-owners who are not employees. The fact that the statute sets forth an employee exception would most likley be read under standard rules of statutory construction to ban others from carrying handguns on private property.

You need to find an authority to back up your claim.

Click to expand...

Mike,

This is not how statutory constructing is read. Laws must define what is NOT allowed by or what is EXEMPT from the application ofa given law. In this case, the law expressly states who is NOT covered by the application of 46.15(B)(2) by stating that ONLY a person who is 1) AN EMPLOYEE and 2) WHO"S PRIMARY DUTY ISPROVIDING SECURITY, is NOT covered by the application of 46.15(B)(2).By statutory convention this would say that AL OTHERS who do not meet this explicitly defined role ARE in fact covered by 46.15 and thus, exempt from the application of 46.02.

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

Mike,

This is not how statutory constructing is read. Laws must define what is NOT allowed by or what is EXEMPT from the application ofa given law. In this case, the law expressly states who is NOT covered by the application of 46.15(B)(2) by stating that ONLY a person who is 1) AN EMPLOYEE and 2) WHO"S PRIMARY DUTY ISPROVIDING SECURITY, is NOT covered by the application of 46.15(B)(2).By statutory convention this would say that AL OTHERS who do not meet this explicitly defined role ARE in fact covered by 46.15 and thus, exempt from the application of 46.02.

Doc

Click to expand...

No. The statutory scheme here begins with a very clear general handgungun carry ban.

Then there is an exception for owners and that owners' security guards. Therefore, all others are banned from carrying, except where any other explicit statutory exception applies.

Under “the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius or inclusio unius est exclusio alterius . . . to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of the alternative,” State v. Bolin, --- S.E.2d ----, 2008 WL 2078141, 2 (S.C. 2008) (striking down ban on ownership of handguns by adults aged 18-20), the explicit statutory exception for security guards who are agents of owners creates a presumption against construing the owner exemption to just anyone authorized by the owner.

Again, just more reason to repeal Texas' open carry ban.

imported post

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

Mike,

This is not how statutory constructing is read. Laws must define what is NOT allowed by or what is EXEMPT from the application ofa given law. In this case, the law expressly states who is NOT covered by the application of 46.15(B)(2) by stating that ONLY a person who is 1) AN EMPLOYEE and 2) WHO"S PRIMARY DUTY ISPROVIDING SECURITY, is NOT covered by the application of 46.15(B)(2).By statutory convention this would say that AL OTHERS who do not meet this explicitly defined role ARE in fact covered by 46.15 and thus, exempt from the application of 46.02.

Doc

Click to expand...

No. The statutory scheme here begins with a very clear general handgungun carry ban.

Then here is an exception for owners and that owners' security guards. Therefore, all others are banned from carrying, except where any other explicit statutory exception applies.

Under “the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius or inclusio unius est exclusio alterius . . . to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of the alternative,” State v. Bolin, --- S.E.2d ----, 2008 WL 2078141, 2 (S.C. 2008) (striking down ban on ownership of handguns by adults aged 18-20), the explicit statutory exception for security guards who are agents of owners creates a presumption against construing the owner exemption to just anyone authorized by the owner.

Again, just more reason to repeal Texas' open carry ban.

Click to expand...

I must totally disagree with your interpretation of the statute, Mike.

You are correct that 46.02 begins with a complete ban, then includes certain exceptions. These exceptions are further added under 46.15.

As I stated before, all laws MUST define their application and/or lack of application.

In the case of 46.15, this set of statutes is designed to provide exemption from a separate statute, that being 46.02. As such, they must clearly define who is and/or is not covered by their application (i.e. who is and is not exempt under the statute). While you are correct thatan inclusion does imply an exclusion, the depth of either part can be loosely or explicitly defined. If an exclusion is tightly defined by the statute, as it is here, then by convention the opposing inclusion is inversely loosely implied. This is theposition upheld by the convention for which you refer. The point of the convention is that you can not have both a tighly defined inclusion and exclusion because that would leave an area not included in either side.

As such, 46.15 states that 46.02 does not apply to a person who is on their own premises or premises under their control. The statute does not say employees, it says PERSON, a term which is broad and all inclusive of everyone. If the statute meant only to exempt employees, it would have said "any employee" or "any person who is an employee", not simply "any person".

The statute then goes on to tightly and explicitly define what persons are NOT exempt under the statute, that being a PERSON who is both an EMPLOYEE "AND" who's primary job function is to PROVIDE SECURITY. By this wording, the statute very clearly defines who it does not intent to include. Had the intention been to exclude everyone but employees, it would have expressly stated so, or it would have more expressly defined who was included. In this case, the statute very explicitly defines who it does not apply to, which means that it DOES apply to everyone else who does not meet these explicit criteria for exclusion.

This statute clearly indicates that ANY PERSON (other than a person who is an employee AND who's primary function is that of security guard) is covered by 46.15(B)(2), and as such, is exempt from the application of 46.02. There is absolutely no other way to read this statute.

The only reason paid security personal are exempt from this statute is because the state regulates who can make their living as a security gaurd in order to maintain the quality of training for that profession.

Thisposition is further supported by the fact that there have been NOprosecutions in Texas for carrying a handgun on private property, either in a home or business, of an individual exercising this right with the permission of the person with primary control of the property, including the well known anti gun/anti carry cities of Dallas and Houston, where every gun shop and many other business establishments practice open carry by employees. The same is true for non-employees. There is not one known case of such a prosecution in Texas. Then reason is that 46.15 clearly exempts such persons from 46.02.

doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

This statute clearly indicates that ANY PERSON (other than a person who is an employee AND who's primary function is that of security guard) is covered by 46.15(B)(2), and as such, is exempt from the application of 46.02. There is absolutely no other way to read this statute.

Click to expand...

Sure there is another way to read the statute - how about the way it is written?

It is simplly not true that "any person" may open carry on private land - the exception is merely for"premises under [a] person's control." This therefore excludes all others who are mere guests, invitees, or tresspassers.

imported post

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

This statute clearly indicates that ANY PERSON (other than a person who is an employee AND who's primary function is that of security guard) is covered by 46.15(B)(2), and as such, is exempt from the application of 46.02. There is absolutely no other way to read this statute.

Click to expand...

Sure there is another way to read the statute - how about the way it is written?

It is simplly not true that "any person" may open carry on private land - the exception is merely for"premises under [a] person's control." This therefore excludes all others who are mere guests, invitees, or tresspassers.

Click to expand...

Mike,

I can allow anyone I wish to use my property in any manner I wish. i can allow you to carry on my ranch or in my business. I can lease you half my office or simply allow you to use it for your business and that gives you control. While a lease or use agreement protects you and me from misuse, it is not necessary. As for a trespasser, they do not have my permission and thus have no authorization. trespassers do not fall in the same category.

In an attempt to get a third (and more creditable) interpretation of the statute,I just got off the phone with a shooting friend who is a recentlyretired District Court Judge in Texas and he offered the exact same interpretation of the statute as I wrote above. I do not tell youthis to give support of my position,merely to encourage you to do the same. I suggest you contact a Texas based attorney and get their opinion if you still doubt this interpretation.

In the meantime we will simply agree to disagree.

Take care,

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

Mike,

I can allow anyone I wish to use my property in any manner I wish. i can allow you to carry on my ranch or in my business.

Click to expand...

Cite to authority when proffering rules of law.

If you can "allow anyone I wish to use my property in any manner I wish," can you authorize them to break the law? Murder people?Carry openly in violation of a clear Texas statute?

No, of course you can't.

imported post

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

Mike,

I can allow anyone I wish to use my property in any manner I wish. i can allow you to carry on my ranch or in my business.

Click to expand...

Cite to authority when proffering rules of law.

If you can "allow anyone I wish to use my property in any manner I wish," can you authorize them to break the law? Murder people?Carry openly in violation of a clear Texas statute?

No, of course you can't.

Click to expand...

No Mike, you can not authorize someone to break the law and that is not what I said. I said I can allow anyone to use my property in any manner that is legal for me to use it. If you will go back a few posts you will see that I clearly spelled this out and while I did not use those exact words in the immediate post, I figured you were capable of recalling that statement and understanding this was my intent in the above abbreviated statement. As with the law, don't read things into my statements that are not there.

As for your request to "cite to authority", I would remind you that laws do not give authority, they merely remove authority and when a law exists that removes authority, there can be exemptions to that law. In the case of private property, there are no laws that remove the right of the property owner/controling party to deligate the same rights to another on that property.

In addition, private property is not subject to the laws governing public property. As the primary person in control of that property I candeligate my rights of usealong to another. This is the same reason thatin order to prosecute someone for criminal trespass, most LEO's require the offender to have been given a CT warning in the presence of an LEO before they willactually charge a person with that offense.

As I said before, Mike, I disagree with your interpretation and I base this disagreement on numerous factors, including the way the the actual law reads, the way the courts historically interpret such laws in Texas, the fact that despite the wide spread practice of both open and concealed carry without a license on private property in Texas by both employees and non-employees, there is not one single known case of a person being prosecuted under 46.02 for for doing so, and in no small part, on the opinion of a long time state district court judge.

While I disagree with your opinion, Mike, I respect your right to your opinion, but since we clearly will not agree on this issue,there is no reason to continue arguing the point.I do not askyou to take my word for it, and I again suggest you contact a Texas based criminal attorney for a formal opinion if you want to find out for sure one way or the other. In the meantime, lets just agree to disagree.

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

As for your request to "cite to authority", I would remind you that laws do not give authority, they merely remove authority and when a law exists that removes authority, there can be exemptions to that law. In the case of private property, there are no laws that remove the right of the property owner/controling party to deligate the same rights to another on that property.

Click to expand...

Huh? You gotta be kidding me - cite to authority. Handgun carry is banned thruout texas subject to very narrow restrictions - you cannot turn the owner exception into a catchall "delegate to anyone else too" provision.

Your position is ludicrous - a hand wave waiting to get people in real trouble.

imported post

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

As for your request to "cite to authority", I would remind you that laws do not give authority, they merely remove authority and when a law exists that removes authority, there can be exemptions to that law. In the case of private property, there are no laws that remove the right of the property owner/controling party to deligate the same rights to another on that property.

Click to expand...

Huh? You gotta be kidding me - cite to authority. Handgun carry is banned thruout texas subject to very narrow restrictions - you cannot turn the owner exception into a catchall "delegate to anyone else too" provision.

Your position is ludicrous - a hand wave waiting to get people in real trouble.

Click to expand...

Mike,

I have always thought of you as a person of character, but your actions and statements throughout this dialog certainly do not portray you in that light. I am totally confident in my position concerning the statutes in question, mainly based on thethe fact that this position has been affirmed by people with direct experience working with in Texas law (which issomething that I feel you do not have any experience with) and I firmly suggest you contact a Texas based criminal defense attorney before you make a bigger fool of yourself by relying you your own opinion.

And before you revert to childish name calling and flinging accusation of people causing others to get into trouble, perhaps you should do as I did and ask someone with some actual experience in the area, such asa Texas attorney. I assure you that if you do, you will find that you are dead wrong.

Besides, I thought this was a discussion forum where we share opinions and ideas, not a let Mike tell you how it is forum. I am always open to civil discussion with anyone, no matter if I agree with them or not and as the moderator, I would assume that you would share that idea.

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

As for your request to "cite to authority", I would remind you that laws do not give authority, they merely remove authority and when a law exists that removes authority, there can be exemptions to that law. In the case of private property, there are no laws that remove the right of the property owner/controling party to deligate the same rights to another on that property.

Click to expand...

Huh? You gotta be kidding me - cite to authority. Handgun carry is banned thruout texas subject to very narrow restrictions - you cannot turn the owner exception into a catchall "delegate to anyone else too" provision.

Your position is ludicrous - a hand wave waiting to get people in real trouble.

Click to expand...

Mike,

I have always thought of you as a person of character, but your actions and statements throughout this dialog certainly do not portray you in that light. I am totally confident in my position concerning the statutes in question, mainly based on thethe fact that this position has been affirmed by people with direct experience working with in Texas law (which issomething that I feel you do not have any experience with) and I firmly suggest you contact a Texas based criminal defense attorney before you make a bigger fool of yourself by relying you your own opinion.

And before you revert to childish name calling and flinging accusation of people causing others to get into trouble, perhaps you should do as I did and ask someone with some actual experience in the area, such asa Texas attorney. I assure you that if you do, you will find that you are dead wrong.

Besides, I thought this was a discussion forum where we share opinions and ideas, not a let Mike tell you how it is forum. I am always open to civil discussion with anyone, no matter if I agree with them or not and as the moderator, I would assume that you would share that idea.

Doc

Click to expand...

Sorry, you need to follow the rules too - cite to authority, not anonymous hearsay. Right now you sound like those people who advise others that paying federal income taxes is optional.

If you do not cite to authority, why why make your statements other than to try to throw people off track as to how onerous TX gun laws are, or get people into trouble.

imported post

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

This statute clearly indicates that ANY PERSON (other than a person who is an employee AND who's primary function is that of security guard) is covered by 46.15(B)(2), and as such, is exempt from the application of 46.02. There is absolutely no other way to read this statute.

Click to expand...

Sure there is another way to read the statute - how about the way it is written?

It is simplly not true that "any person" may open carry on private land - the exception is merely for"premises under [a] person's control." This therefore excludes all others who are mere guests, invitees, or tresspassers.

Click to expand...

Do I take this to mean that I, on my own property, cannot let my next door neighbor open carry on MY property?

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

This statute clearly indicates that ANY PERSON (other than a person who is an employee AND who's primary function is that of security guard) is covered by 46.15(B)(2), and as such, is exempt from the application of 46.02. There is absolutely no other way to read this statute.

Click to expand...

Sure there is another way to read the statute - how about the way it is written?

It is simplly not true that "any person" may open carry on private land - the exception is merely for"premises under [a] person's control." This therefore excludes all others who are mere guests, invitees, or tresspassers.

Click to expand...

Do I take this to mean that I, on my own property, cannot let my next door neighbor open carry on MY property?

Click to expand...

Thjat is what the plain language of the Texas statute states, see above.. I would love to see any authority to the contrary so we could lawfully hold an open carry meeting.

imported post

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

Mike wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

As for your request to "cite to authority", I would remind you that laws do not give authority, they merely remove authority and when a law exists that removes authority, there can be exemptions to that law. In the case of private property, there are no laws that remove the right of the property owner/controling party to deligate the same rights to another on that property.

Click to expand...

Huh? You gotta be kidding me - cite to authority. Handgun carry is banned thruout texas subject to very narrow restrictions - you cannot turn the owner exception into a catchall "delegate to anyone else too" provision.

Your position is ludicrous - a hand wave waiting to get people in real trouble.

Click to expand...

Mike,

I have always thought of you as a person of character, but your actions and statements throughout this dialog certainly do not portray you in that light. I am totally confident in my position concerning the statutes in question, mainly based on thethe fact that this position has been affirmed by people with direct experience working with in Texas law (which issomething that I feel you do not have any experience with) and I firmly suggest you contact a Texas based criminal defense attorney before you make a bigger fool of yourself by relying you your own opinion.

And before you revert to childish name calling and flinging accusation of people causing others to get into trouble, perhaps you should do as I did and ask someone with some actual experience in the area, such asa Texas attorney. I assure you that if you do, you will find that you are dead wrong.

Besides, I thought this was a discussion forum where we share opinions and ideas, not a let Mike tell you how it is forum. I am always open to civil discussion with anyone, no matter if I agree with them or not and as the moderator, I would assume that you would share that idea.

Doc

Click to expand...

Sorry, you need to follow the rules too - cite to authority, not anonymous hearsay. Right now you sound like those people who advise others that paying federal income taxes is optional.

If you do not cite to authority, why why make your statements other than to try to throw people off track as to how onerous TX gun laws are, or get people into trouble.

Click to expand...

The fact is Mike, you are the one who is having trouble reading Texas law and believe that you know more about it than seasoned lawyers and law makers. While it is your opinion that I am wrong, it is my opinion that you are the one who is wrong. This leaves us at a stalemate with equal authority to contradict the other.

The difference between us is that I am willing take the issue to someone with more knowledge and credibility than myself, so I posed the question toan attorney and a judgeand made my final determination based on their opinions. I then passed the information along to you, butrather than expect you to take my word for it, I simply recommended that you do likewise. But rather than seek an educated opinion, you chose to consider your opinion infallibly and thenwent on to berate me for disagreeing with your view.

Never did I criticise your opinion or make any demeaning remark or comments about you and on no less than three occasions I offered to simply agree to disagree with my respect for your opinion, but on each occasion you chose to increase your belligerent rant against my opinions and to make personal attacks against me. For someone who wants to garner support for their cause, this is certainly not a very effective way to pull it off.

As for citing law, I do cite case law where it applies, however, you need to understand that not all states write or interpret laws the same way. While there are certain factors that are common and inflexible in legal circles, there are variations in the way statutes are written and interpreted. In most cases, laws are written to PROHIBIT, not to AUTHORIZE. They will often have a list of exemptions to application, but they do not write laws to grant specifically authority that is not otherwise prohibited.In the absence of a lawprohibiting a given act, the said act is considered to be legal. Youspecifically asked for a citation of a law authorizing a person to allow others to use their property, when the fact is, there is no law that prohibits the same. The right of the property owner to allow the use of their property is a long held right and is not disputed by any statute in Texas. The practice is common place to every degree and that alone stands to show AUTHORIZATIONof the same.

Now, I understand that you do not agree with this interpretation and that is alright by me, but I live here, I see it is practice on a daily basis and I have researched it on the local front and this has always been the holding of those in authority and in the legal field. If you think you know more than Texas attorneys about Texas law, then by all means go with your opinion. On the other hand, if you want to find out for sure, then get the opinion on someone who deals in Texas law.I might add that if you are correct in your interpretation, then you have found a area of Texaslaw that the entire Texas judicial system has overlooked and misapplied for decades.

Finally, I have never suggested that ANYONE take my opinion on Texas or any other law and I would consider anyone a fool whostaked their livelihood on the opinion of ANYONE on this or any other forum.When in doubt, ask an attorney! I merely offer my opinions, interpretations and reasons for others to ponder in the discussion of these topics. Therefore, do not put words in my mouth, do not accuse me of intentionally trying to mislead others, and do not make false claims as to statements I have made byapplying your words as mine in your posts. Oh, and be willing to accept that your opinion may not always be shared by others and let it go.

I enjoy this forum and the discussions that are shared here, but I expect those who enter into the discussions to be respectful, courteous and and above all, to talk to each others likeadults, not children, and as the moderator, this decorum starts with you. As I said, I respect your opinion as much as anyone else's, but you need to be equally respectful of other as well (even when you disagree with them).

Doc

imported post

Wow it's getting hot in this thread.

It looks like the bone of contention here is the meaning of the phrase "premises under the person's control".

Is there any other Texas law which could shed some light on what that phrase exactly means? According to Doc it means that a property owner can arbitrarily issue permission to control the property to the extent of allowing them to open carry without granting them full privilege to control the property.

Mike reads this more intuitively and in a way I naturally tend to agree with, that being under the person's control means that person is appointed to act in the name of the owner, like a manager of a business.

This is what needs to be clarified, preferably by legal definition or another law that clarifies the phrase or specifically the word control as used to describe a person's role on private property.

Naturally, as has been suggested before, Open Carriers need to be HYPER aware of the law and as it appears, a property owner cannot simply give permission to open carry without transferring total control of that property to another person.