There is no statutory definition of "property owner," at least in this Chp. 30 of the Penal Code. Since it is not specifically defined, it carries the same definition as "commonly used" in conversation. It would include the owner of the real estate and/or the owner of the business, if the property is leased by the business owner.
Also, 30.06 refers not only to the property owner, but also to "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner." Since any employee or security guard would have "apparent authority," virtually anyone working for the business can give verbal notice. Who has “apparent authority� will be judged by the “reasonable person� standard, not what any particular defendant believed. It would not work to argue that you didn't believe a janitor had the authority to say guns can't be brought into the building. An owner could easily instruct every one of his/her employees to tell people that, if they see or suspect a gun.
Regards,
Chas.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Sea World (San Antonio) Not Posted”
- Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:44 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Sea World (San Antonio) Not Posted
- Replies: 35
- Views: 7147
- Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:29 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Sea World (San Antonio) Not Posted
- Replies: 35
- Views: 7147
I vaguely recall the committee discussions about 30.06 when it was being drafted and perhaps amended. The majority of the focus was on the sign. In fact, as originally drafted, the bill required both verbal warning and a sign, but the anti’s caught that one and it was changed to “or.�
As written, 30.06(a)(2)(A) does require that notice must be given that “entry by a license holder . . .� is forbidden, so it could be argued that a verbal notice should/must contain information that would allow the CHL holder to determine that the prohibition applies to a CHL holder, not merely to unlicensed possession. I would not attempt to rely upon this distinction! It may be correct, but if you are arrested, you’ll be spending a lot of money in an attempt to prove the verbal warning was lacking.
As a practical matter, a verbal warning is unlikely to be given, unless the property owner knows or suspects that a CHL is carrying a gun on the property. No one is going to have a recording playing that advises folks that no guns are allowed. It could be a metal detector or purse inspection that detects the pistol, among other possibilities. The CHL is then told he/she can’t bring a gun into the building and the CHL responds with “I have a CHL.� Owner then says “I don’t care, you can’t bring a gun in here.� I am certain this would be sufficient to get you arrested, prosecuted and convicted, if you ignore that warning and attempt to rely upon the failure of the property owner to say “even CHL holders can’t bring guns in here� or something to that effect. Be safe; if someone tells you no guns, then don’t go in. I have never heard of anyone being given a verbal warning, but it probably does happen on rare occasions.
Regards,
Chas.
As written, 30.06(a)(2)(A) does require that notice must be given that “entry by a license holder . . .� is forbidden, so it could be argued that a verbal notice should/must contain information that would allow the CHL holder to determine that the prohibition applies to a CHL holder, not merely to unlicensed possession. I would not attempt to rely upon this distinction! It may be correct, but if you are arrested, you’ll be spending a lot of money in an attempt to prove the verbal warning was lacking.
As a practical matter, a verbal warning is unlikely to be given, unless the property owner knows or suspects that a CHL is carrying a gun on the property. No one is going to have a recording playing that advises folks that no guns are allowed. It could be a metal detector or purse inspection that detects the pistol, among other possibilities. The CHL is then told he/she can’t bring a gun into the building and the CHL responds with “I have a CHL.� Owner then says “I don’t care, you can’t bring a gun in here.� I am certain this would be sufficient to get you arrested, prosecuted and convicted, if you ignore that warning and attempt to rely upon the failure of the property owner to say “even CHL holders can’t bring guns in here� or something to that effect. Be safe; if someone tells you no guns, then don’t go in. I have never heard of anyone being given a verbal warning, but it probably does happen on rare occasions.
Regards,
Chas.