30.06 but employer says I can carry concealed.

[baldeagle]

I would not carry there, even with a permission.
You CC carry beyond '06 sign, you are breaking the law.
And if there was a situation where you had to deploy your weapon, right/wrong/indifferent, defense would be a steep uphill battle.

Your analysis of the law is incorrect.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

Here's the structure: IF you carry WITHOUT effective consent AND receive 30.06 notice you commit trespass if you enter with a weapon.

Effective consent overrides the requirement to obey the sign.

[parabelum]

I would not carry there, even with a permission.
You CC carry beyond '06 sign, you are breaking the law.
And if there was a situation where you had to deploy your weapon, right/wrong/indifferent, defense would be a steep uphill battle.

Your analysis of the law is incorrect.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

Here's the structure: IF you carry WITHOUT effective consent AND receive 30.06 notice you commit trespass if you enter with a weapon.

Effective consent overrides the requirement to obey the sign.

My apologies if my interpretation was incorrect.

As I stated before:

"I thought that there was a difference between actual and effective consent, where written permission applies to actual consent and would not be in alignment with the language in the statue."

Statue language reads "effective...". My understanding was that written consent = active consent, and that effective consent was act based i.e. verbal. And in the OP case, since there was a contradiction between his boss giving him an "ok" and his bosses partner not giving him "ok", my thought was that effective notice was not given, since both proprietors did not consent.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and I am likely just overlooking this.

[rockinar]

I would not carry there, even with a permission.
You CC carry beyond '06 sign, you are breaking the law.
And if there was a situation where you had to deploy your weapon, right/wrong/indifferent, defense would be a steep uphill battle.

His employer gave him consent, which he can do. He just needs it in writing so the employer can't deny it,

[thetexan]

Think of effective consent as knowledgeable acquiescence.

Think of consent as explicit permission.

Consent is a more deliberate level of permission than effective consent. If the offense requires a lack of effective consent and notification then the presence of effective consent, by logic, defeats the offense. And if the lesser effective consent defeats the offense then the greater consent certainly does.

tex

[jonathan1173]

Thanks! All very good replies, I appreciate it.
I'll request again to have it in writing/ email, otherwise its time to look for a different job.
Its better to be judged by 12 than carried by six, but no low-paying part-time job is worth going to jail over.

[jmra]

Just MHO, but I would not carry even if I had written permission from this "partner". The only way I would carry is if the written consent was signed by all of the "partners".
I question the integrity of a "partner" who either consented to posting 30.06 under pressure from his partners or was out voted by his partners in the matter and then authorizes someone to circumvent the posting without consulting the other partners.

[Right2Carry]

I think consent must come from the person(s) posting the property. I don't think just any ole supervisor or boss can give consent if they aren't the ones responsible for making the decision to post the property. Maybe I am wrong but I am not sure I would want to test it out.

[thetexan]

I think consent must come from the person(s) posting the property. I don't think just any ole supervisor or boss can give consent if they aren't the ones responsible for making the decision to post the property. Maybe I am wrong but I am not sure I would want to test it out.

Thankfully we don't have to guess. The only qualifier is that the person has "APPARENT" authority to act for the owner.

This means that it must be apparent (to who?) to you that the person has authority to act on behalf of the owner. There is no requirement that the person ACTUALLY has authority but only that it is APPARENT to you that he has authority. So if a manager imposter dressed as a manager in a stolen uniform with a stolen badge who represents himself to you as the manager tells you that you can't carry in the building AND he is APPARENTLY (to you) acting on behalf of the owner then you have notification...as far as you are concerned!

Otherwise you would be required, YOURSELF, to vet the authenticity of the person's authority to act on behalf of the owner.

tex

[Soccerdad1995]

Consider this possibility. There is a workplace shooting at your job and you use your weapon to stop the perp, but only after he/she shoots and kills your boss. Without written consent, how do you prove your boss gave his consent?

If you are charged with a crime, the prosecutor needs too prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. So wouldn't the prosecution need to prove that you were not given effective consent?

And I agree that if this happens, and the DA is insensitive enough to charge you with the Class C misdemeanor, a $200 fine is nothing compared to the loss of life that will have occurred.

[Soccerdad1995]

I think consent must come from the person(s) posting the property. I don't think just any ole supervisor or boss can give consent if they aren't the ones responsible for making the decision to post the property. Maybe I am wrong but I am not sure I would want to test it out.

Thankfully we don't have to guess. The only qualifier is that the person has "APPARENT" authority to act for the owner.

This means that it must be apparent (to who?) to you that the person has authority to act on behalf of the owner. There is no requirement that the person ACTUALLY has authority but only that it is APPARENT to you that he has authority. So if a manager imposter dressed as a manager in a stolen uniform with a stolen badge who represents himself to you as the manager tells you that you can't carry in the building AND he is APPARENTLY (to you) acting on behalf of the owner then you have notification...as far as you are concerned!

Otherwise you would be required, YOURSELF, to vet the authenticity of the person's authority to act on behalf of the owner.

tex

In a thread about the opposite situation, I believe it was pretty much acknowledged that any employee and even a LEO can give effective notice in lieu of a non-compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. Wouldn't that be the same standard at play here?

[Soccerdad1995]

Consider this possibility. There is a workplace shooting at your job and you use your weapon to stop the perp, but only after he/she shoots and kills your boss. Without written consent, how do you prove your boss gave his consent?

In that case, the least of your worries is going to be beating the $200 ticket for carrying without effective consent... But, you will want to make the case so that you keep your presumption of justification under 9.31/9.32... Assuming you're being prosecuted for shooting the perp...that is.

Assuming the perp just shot his boss and the perp still has his weapon in hand, I want to be on the jury. And I'm talking about the civil case for wrongful prosecution. Any criminal case likely never makes it to a jury.

[thetexan]

In a thread about the opposite situation, I believe it was pretty much acknowledged that any employee and even a LEO can give effective notice in lieu of a non-compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. Wouldn't that be the same standard at play here?

"in lieu of a non-compliant 30.07/30.07 sign" ?????

In my career as an instructor in commercial aviation and air traffic control teaching very technical regulations and the precise interpretation thereof, it has been my experience that one must first come to a complete, dispassionate, unbiased understanding of the exact reading of a rule or regulation before attempting to add context or interpretation to it. Otherwise the intended meaning becomes distorted at the outset.

First, a non-compliant sign requires no other permission to go beyond it. Precisely, statutorily, and in practice, a non-compliant sign is as good as non-existent. Therefore there is no need for consent or effective consent to override a sign that has no legal meaning. Again, this is a precise, if not practically realistic, rendering of the words of the statute.

If you want to ponder who would be able to give consent or effective consent to pass a compliant 30.06/.07 which legally prohibits passage, or a non-compliant sign which does not LEGALLY prohibit passage (but that you want to respect non-the-less just to not make waves) then we come to the "apparent authority" test each and every time. It is no more complicated and as simple as that. Does the person who gives authority to pass the compliant or non-compliant (that you wish to respect) sign do so as the owner or with the "APPARENT" authority of the owner. That "apparent-NESS" is determined by you and you are legally responsible for and subject to the consequences of that determination. The seriousness of those consequences causes people to err on the side of caution but the desire to err on the side of caution does not necessarily a legally correct determination make.

Second, it does not matter who the person is giving the notice. I don't care if the president of the United States himself, the head of the FBI or the Attorney General gives you the notice...that person must meet the requirement of having "apparent authority" to act for the owner each and every time. If you believe a LEO has that authority fine, I agree he does, on several levels. But the test must be met each time. Whether or not any employee has that apparent authority is something only the beholder and determiner of "apparent" can decide...and consequently bear the legal responsibility for a wrong determination. Personally, I would take the notification from a LEO, from a manager, but not NECESSARILY the janitor or french fry cook.

Words mean things in regulations and "APPARENT" means apparent.

tex

[Soccerdad1995]

In a thread about the opposite situation, I believe it was pretty much acknowledged that any employee and even a LEO can give effective notice in lieu of a non-compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. Wouldn't that be the same standard at play here?

"in lieu of a non-compliant 30.07/30.07 sign" ?????

In my career as an instructor in commercial aviation and air traffic control teaching very technical regulations and the precise interpretation thereof, it has been my experience that one must first come to a complete, dispassionate, unbiased understanding of the exact reading of a rule or regulation before attempting to add context or interpretation to it. Otherwise the intended meaning becomes distorted at the outset.

First, a non-compliant sign requires no other permission to go beyond it. Precisely, statutorily, and in practice, a non-compliant sign is as good as non-existent. Therefore there is no need for consent or effective consent to override a sign that has no legal meaning. Again, this is a precise, if not practically realistic, rendering of the words of the statute.

If you want to ponder who would be able to give consent or effective consent to pass a compliant 30.06/.07 which legally prohibits passage, or a non-compliant sign which does not LEGALLY prohibit passage (but that you want to respect non-the-less just to not make waves) then we come to the "apparent authority" test each and every time. It is no more complicated and as simple as that. Does the person who gives authority to pass the compliant or non-compliant (that you wish to respect) sign do so as the owner or with the "APPARENT" authority of the owner. That "apparent-NESS" is determined by you and you are legally responsible for and subject to the consequences of that determination. The seriousness of those consequences causes people to err on the side of caution but the desire to err on the side of caution does not necessarily a legally correct determination make.

Second, it does not matter who the person is giving the notice. I don't care if the president of the United States himself, the head of the FBI or the Attorney General gives you the notice...that person must meet the requirement of having "apparent authority" to act for the owner each and every time. If you believe a LEO has that authority fine, I agree he does, on several levels. But the test must be met each time. Whether or not any employee has that apparent authority is something only the beholder and determiner of "apparent" can decide...and consequently bear the legal responsibility for a wrong determination. Personally, I would take the notification from a LEO, from a manager, but not NECESSARILY the janitor or french fry cook.

Words mean things in regulations and "APPARENT" means apparent.

tex

The specific situation I was talking about was where a business had a non-compliant sign posted. Someone walked in with an OC weapon and the manager of the business called the police. The LEO spoke with the manager, then told the person OC'ing that he could not openly carry a gun. It was pretty universally agreed that the LEO in that case had apparent authority to give notice.

My question here is whether that same standard applies in reverse. If any employee of a business (or a LEO after talking to an employee) could reasonably be assumed to have apparent authority to tell me not to OC where there is no valid sign (such as Whataburger), then would a customer be OK assuming that any employee of a business has apparent authority to tell them they can ignore a valid sign?

[thetexan]

This is where the oral notification aspect gets confused with written notification.

The three forms of notification are...

Oral
Written cards or documents
Signage

Along with the notification there is effective consent or the absence thereof. It takes notification without effective consent.

There can be written cards or documents with or without effective consent.

There can be signage with or without effective consent.

There CAN NOT be oral notification with effective consent. The owner cannot verbally tell you to leave while at the same time giving you his consent or effective consent to stay!

Only the owner or one with apparent authority may give notice presumably without effective consent. In the case of written docs and signage there is the possibility of notification WITH effective consent voiding the notification but it would have to come from someone with the same authority to give notification in the first place.

A non compliant sign technically doesn't exist so walking past one places you at the mercy of someone giving you, then, oral notification. And that person must meet the apparent authority test.

What convolutes the situation is that even though the sign is non compliant IT IS TAKEN to be compliant by most (study the non compliant sign threads) therefore the oral notification is taken as a second warning rather than the original oral notification. And they also assume that the most menial of employee has a right to give that second warning since they are only reaffirming the sign (which happens to be non compliant) when in fact, since they are giving original oral notification apparent authority is required.

Of course, this is a theoretical analysis to help better understand the dynamics of the event. As to 30.07 I would consider even a non compliant sign as good enough simply because I want to avoid verbal notification like the plague due to its permanent nature.

Apparent-NESS is subjective but logically one authorized to Withold effective consent also has authority to give it.

tex

[Soccerdad1995]

This is where the oral notification aspect gets confused with written notification.

The three forms of notification are...

Oral
Written cards or documents
Signage

Along with the notification there is effective consent or the absence thereof. It takes notification without effective consent.

There can be written cards or documents with or without effective consent.

There can be signage with or without effective consent.

There CAN NOT be oral notification with effective consent. The owner cannot verbally tell you to leave while at the same time giving you his consent or effective consent to stay!

Only the owner or one with apparent authority may give notice presumably without effective consent. In the case of written docs and signage there is the possibility of notification WITH effective consent voiding the notification but it would have to come from someone with the same authority to give notification in the first place.

A non compliant sign technically doesn't exist so walking past one places you at the mercy of someone giving you, then, oral notification. And that person must meet the apparent authority test.

What convolutes the situation is that even though the sign is non compliant IT IS TAKEN to be compliant by most (study the non compliant sign threads) therefore the oral notification is taken as a second warning rather than the original oral notification. And they also assume that the most menial of employee has a right to give that second warning since they are only reaffirming the sign (which happens to be non compliant) when in fact, since they are giving original oral notification apparent authority is required.

Of course, this is a theoretical analysis to help better understand the dynamics of the event. As to 30.07 I would consider even a non compliant sign as good enough simply because I want to avoid verbal notification like the plague due to its permanent nature.

Apparent-NESS is subjective but logically one authorized to Withold effective consent also has authority to give it.

tex

Thank you for the extensive analysis. And thank you for reminding me why I never became a lawyer.

Of course, you then get into the whole question of enforceability and whether a party can prove that effective consent happened. That's why a lot of folks in this thread advised the OP to get his bosses consent in writing.