TexasCHLforum.com

mreed911 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

Yes, but the mere act of calling the police does not, in and of it self, confer authority. An affirmative step is required for such delegation.

Care to cite the law for that?

mreed911 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Key word: Further. Don't misread case law.

But this case isn't on point with your claim that police have apparent authority by virtue of being called.

Specifically, here, a police officer lived in the complex in exchange for providing security services and was explicitly vested with authority.

There's nothing on point here about apparent authority at all, and it addresses a narrow example of a non-tenant with no specific rights of access, etc.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with reading case law. This is most certainly on point.

Further, an apartment manager can delegate to security personnel or other agents the authority
to exclude people from the property. State v. Jackson, 849 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.);

Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

mreed911 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

thetexan wrote:Can you cite some of that case law please.

tex

An apartment manager has a superior right to the property against a non-tenant.
Further, an apartment manager can delegate to security personnel or other agents the authority
to exclude people from the property. State v. Jackson, 849 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.);

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html

Key word: non-tenant.

Key word: Further. Don't misread case law.

Here's what I understand about this issue. The state has passed laws that define precisely what a sign must look like to be compliant. It has to be in both Spanish and English. The letters have to be a certain height. The wording has to be precisely what the law says. If a sign is non-compliant, a licensed gun carrier may walk past it without breaking the law.

Here's where the difference comes in that so many seem to be missing. 30.07 protects CC. If a business owner wants to completely and legally ban guns from their business they MUST post both signs properly. If a business owner has an incorrect 30.07 sign but no 30.06 sign, you can walk in open carrying, but you can also rest assured you will receive verbal notice. The problem is that verbal notice MAY prevent you from CCing in that business in the future, depending upon how the notice was given. "We don't want guns in here" is sufficient legal notice for both CC and OC. Now you can NEVER legally enter that business armed, even if they take their signs down. (Charles was very clear on that, and since he was involved in the writing of almost every gun law on the books, I'll take his professional evaluation that verbal notice is forever.)

So, while it may gall you that businesses don't have to use proper signs, you are faced with a choice. Ignore the improper sign and risk being banned forever and possibly having the business owner post BOTH 30.07 and 30.06, ruining it for all gun carriers. Or admit the obvious fact that the business does not want open carry and CC if you need to go in, letting sleeping dogs lie.

I believe there should be a reporting procedure for improper signage, perhaps only for 30.07, that allows gun carriers to report businesses that are out of compliance. Then perhaps the law can impose a fine on a business that uses improper signage and then calls the police to enforce their desires, so that they can be given a specific amount of time to either come into compliance or remove the signs. Or they can simply pay the police every time they call them, much like the charge for false alarms on alarm systems.

mreed911 wrote:

goose wrote:

mreed911 wrote:triple tap

looking to sell a firearm?

No, my browser and this site don't get along. It posted the same thing three times. Chrome on OS X... and it's the only forum I seem to have this problem with.

I didn't even know there was a classifieds section here. :)

I'd be fine with a mod deleting them.

Strange. I use Chrome on OSX and do not have any problems with this site.