Open Carry while on Property

[Tejano Scott]

I saw you were an attorney before you posted on this. I was just waiting for it, lol.

Well, I may only be a law student, but I wasn't born yesterday. I've seen how things work from the attorney's point of view, and if I've learned anything, it's that the reason you can make a living as an attorney is that the law is open to interpretation (as well as ripe for finding procedural errors made by the opposing counsel) and there are always opposing points of view. It seems it ends up being a question of a logical argument many times when the law is vague.

But I'm sure you know all of that and, if you're a successful attorney, are plenty good at interpreting the law and carefully choosing to argue based on specific circumstances.

So am I to assume (in the absence of any agreement from you with my view) that you also believe the law is crystal clear leaving no need to discuss it, let alone challenge it when someone comes in with some very matter-of-fact interpretations that seem to defy logic? (serious question)

Damn, I step away for 1 hour to go meet up with Zerobug at Dairy Queen and he flames himself out... If you can still see this, you have a lot to learn about how the world works- don't let your ivory tower professors fool you. All of that may work well for anticipating crazy exam questions that may get asked, but it's truly not very real world. If you act this way in court, your career will be spent in the parking lot of the Court explaining to your client why the judge just poured you out and why he loses. Best of luck. Word to the wise- get paid before you go into court with that attitude.

 

[Bithabus]

TXI makes the argument that more than one person can be in control at the same time, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

Certainly possible. For example, a husband and wife who lease a small farm to grow corn.

 

[chris211]

As intelligent as you guys seem to be and the education you have been given....ya'll sound so fucking stupid!!

 

[Acera]

This thread gives me a headache, LOL. Can we just close it?

The member who started it has not posted since the first post back in February. Obvious to me he's not interested anymore.

 

[TexasRedneck]

This thread gives me a headache, LOL. Can we just close it?

Just think of it as troll bait....

 

[chris211]

Just think of it as troll bait....

I just get a kick out of these long drawn out threads debating the law and the scenarios that surround them. There are a few people here that I wonder if they actually ever wander out into the real world.

 

[TexasRedneck]

The problem w/scenarios is that the very seldom represent a situation that's really gonna happen,, because those presentin' them are doin' so in order to make some kinda point.

 

[deemus]

This thread made my balls itch...

 

[chris211]

This thread made my balls itch...

Cheap hookers make my balls itch

 

[deemus]

Maybe that's what it is

 

[TreyG-20]

This thread made my balls itch...

Your itchy balls make my balls itch. I think you gave me something yesterday.

 

[chris211]

Your itchy balls make my balls itch. I think you gave me something yesterday.

 

[KMX]

As intelligent as you guys seem to be and the education you have been given....ya'll sound so fucking stupid!!

LOL

 

[M. Sage]

Certainly possible. For example, a husband and wife who lease a small farm to grow corn.

Right, that's one where it would work. I meant more like the question that was asked, where there's a property owner and a non-owner and both are present. I don't see how a non-owner could really be in control at the same time the owner is.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Lol...he's a law student....I sense wrong google searches from that one....lmao

 

[Bithabus]

Right, that's one where it would work. I meant more like the question that was asked, where there's a property owner and a non-owner and both are present. I don't see how a non-owner could really be in control at the same time the owner is.

I think it would be up to the owner. Some business owners, for example, are happy to delegate control to the manager.

 

[Koinonia]

I think it would be up to the owner. Some business owners, for example, are happy to delegate control to the manager.

It would make sense. In my case, I am on and in control of the property, until the property owner arrives. I'd hate to think that legally my right to carry a handgun openly ends, as soon as she sets foot on the property. I have her permission to carry, but the law doesn't seem to address that situation. (Up to interpretation, I'd suppose. Hope I am not the test case...)


Side note: We had a Frio County Sheriff come out on a call we made, and there were eight of us, armed, openly carrying handguns holstered, and several rifles. He didn't seem phased, or make any attempt to disarm or discourage such acts. Don't know if it;d be helpful here, but just thought I'd put it out there.

 

[txinvestigator]

Right, that's one where it would work. I meant more like the question that was asked, where there's a property owner and a non-owner and both are present. I don't see how a non-owner could really be in control at the same time the owner is.

When I am at the range teaching at the same time the owner is, I have the premises under my control. in fact, other employees and I have refused service to and kicked out people with the owner in her office and unaware.

 

[Younggun]

When I am at the range teaching at the same time the owner is, I have the premises under my control. in fact, other employees and I have refused service to and kicked out people with the owner in her office and unaware.

Doesn't being at the range qualify as participating in firearms related activities or something that allows open carry on private property.

At that point control of the property wouldn't matter because everyone participating in the event can legally OC.

Drawing from a fuzzy memory on this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I have been at Carter's Country before when they required an off-duty LEO to stop open carrying on their property.