Open Carry with permission?

[RottenApple]

Found this in a Texas case. This is what the jury instruction would be if your employee is charged.

“As a part of the law in this case, a defendant has the legal right to carry a pistol upon premises of which he has control and which are subject to his *688 use; therefore, if you find from the evidence, or have a reasonable doubt thereof, that the carrying of the pistol by the defendant was solely upon premises under his control and of which he had the use, you will find the defendant not guilty and so say by your verdict. In this connection, you are instructed that the terms ‘control’ and ‘use’ do not mean exclusive control and use.”

Cool. What case was that and what was the final finding?

[JKTex]

Found this in a Texas case. This is what the jury instruction would be if your employee is charged.

“As a part of the law in this case, a defendant has the legal right to carry a pistol upon premises of which he has control and which are subject to his *688 use; therefore, if you find from the evidence, or have a reasonable doubt thereof, that the carrying of the pistol by the defendant was solely upon premises under his control and of which he had the use, you will find the defendant not guilty and so say by your verdict. In this connection, you are instructed that the terms ‘control’ and ‘use’ do not mean exclusive control and use.”

You mean "may" be instructed, as that was, assuming, from an actual case.

Do you have a link or something we can see to understand the actual specifics of the case? It does appear to be based on someone charged with possession of a gun where they would otherwise not have been allowed to carry if they were not "in control" of the premises. That doesn't tell the whole story though.

[Gat0rs]

Here you go, will send you a bill in the mail :)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
POSTON
v.
STATE.

No. 18788.
April 21, 1937.


The court refused to give these charges. Appellant's special *320 charge No. 7 was, in substance, that if the jury found from the evidence that at the time appellant was found in possession of the pistol he was in the employment of John Gaddy, and was in the employment of Barker & Wilcoxson, and if they found that at said time he was in the place of business of either of said parties, they should acquit him.

**518 In our opinion the substance of the special charges above set out should have been embodied in the charge of the court to the jury under the facts of this case. It is true, appellant did not own either place of business referred to, and the jury may have been misled by the language of the court's charge, but it is legally true that if appellant was employed to work in both of said places of business, he would not have been violating the law to have had on his person at either place the weapon mentioned. Smith v. State, 50 Tex.Cr.R. 642, 100 S.W. 155; Craig v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 195, 131 S.W. 562; Gibbs v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 278, 156 S.W. 687; Campbell v. State, 28 Tex.App. 44, 11 S.W. 832.

[Gat0rs]

I would read this one too.

Brook v. State
999 So.2d 1093
Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2009.
January 09, 2009 (Approx. 4 pages)


Says that an employee of a grocery store can carry in the store if he has the owners permission because he is an employee, citing the last case I posted.

[Keith B]

I would read this one too.

Brook v. State
999 So.2d 1093
Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2009.
January 09, 2009 (Approx. 4 pages)


Says that an employee of a grocery store can carry in the store if he has the owners permission because he is an employee, citing the last case I posted.

This has no meaning in Texas as it is Florida case law. One above is the same as it is Georgia.

[RottenApple]

I would read this one too.

Brook v. State
999 So.2d 1093
Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2009.
January 09, 2009 (Approx. 4 pages)


Says that an employee of a grocery store can carry in the store if he has the owners permission because he is an employee, citing the last case I posted.

This has no meaning in Texas as it is Florida case law. One above is the same as it is Georgia.

No. The one above, Poston v State, is Texas. I can find reference to it: Poston v. State, 132 Tex.Crim. 317, 104 S.W.2d 516 (Tx.Crim.App.1937). But can't find the actual text.

[Gat0rs]

Read this also Birch v. State
948 S.W.2d 880
Tex.App.–San Antonio,1997.
June 04, 1997 (Approx. 9 pages)


The Florida case is relevant because it cites the Texas case and is from 2007 (thus, the Texas case is still good law). Also adds weight since other courts follow it.

The case I cite directly above says that

In addition to the statutory defenses, including traveling, there are other exceptions or exemptions FN6 crafted by case law which arise when the defendant has a legitimate purpose to carry the weapon. See generally Deuschle v. State, 109 Tex.Crim. 355, 4 S.W.2d 559, 561 (1927); Dixon v. State, 908 S.W.2d 616, 619 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1995, pet. ref'd ). For example, a person has a legitimate purpose to carry a weapon to any *884 of the places excepted by section 46.02(b) such as his home or place of business.

This is an appellate decision in 1997 in Texas.

[03Lightningrocks]

I sincerely appreciate all the responses. Truth is, all of the legal talk goes over my head. Nobody at the office has open carried around there yet but tomorrow I plan to rescind my permission. We don't get many customers at our office. We service in customers homes. Thinking about it, if a customer were to come in to visit and see one of my guys open carrying, I am not sure how it would be perceived.

There is only one person who seems to have trouble figuring out how to comfortably conceal carry and he needs to get over it. The more I think about what I gave permission for, the more I regret the decision.

From what I have read here, I think I am good to go unless one of my employees shoots an innocent while on my property. The expense of that risk alone is enough to make me nervous.

[JKTex]

Well, it's kind of like law.....you don't have to give express permission or authorization, and you aren't obligated to restrict or prohibit.

[Beiruty]

Let have HB700, legalizing open carry for CHLer and your problem is solved.

[Zoo]

The word "consent" appears seven times in Chapter 30. The word "consent" appears once in Chapter 46, and that relates to minors and parental consent. It's obvious the law says a property owner can deny consent to carry, making it illegal on their property even if someone has a CHL. However, nowhere does it say a property owner can give consent to carry without a license, or in violation of the license conditions. I ask those claiming otherwise to name the actual laws, instead of trying to confuse people with hysteria about nuclear weapons and murder.

Laws don't generally give permission other wise the law books would be never ending. Law usually dictates that something is no legal or specifies conditions.

I think the reason this is difficult is that people are looking for express permission rather than looking for a lack of prohibition.

It's probably much simpler than we're making it though. It's how we troll here on the internet.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet. http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/4602.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gat0rs]

Let have HB700, legalizing open carry for CHLer and your problem is solved.

[G26ster]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet. http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/4602.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PC 46.02 has been mentioned and quoted in several posts in this thread, highlighting the applicable sections.