Bazooka Joe71
Member
Are we so sure about this? Give the guy some credit, guns do fire on their own sometimes don't they?
ouch ... workplace ND in TX
- Thread starter 30 cal slob
- Start date
- Status
Are we so sure about this? Give the guy some credit, guns do fire on their own sometimes don't they?
arthurcw
Member
NO THANKS NEEDED CITIZEN!! JUST DOING MY JOB!
KelVarnson
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 255
A bit of a generalization there. Certainly the guy in question did something negligent in the handling of his gun, but it hasn't yet been established that he was carrying illegally, and even if he was I don't see how this could be directly tied to the ND.
How about people who take the Second Amendment literally, and choose to carry regardless of the "laws", does that make them stupid? Not IMHO.
I think this was probably some fine upstanding insurance agent, who believed in the 2nd, and carried for whatever reason he wanted, but should have learned more about handling his firearm.
damien
Member
What is control of a property if control cannot be delegated? The question is, did the manager (who controlled the premises and can presumably can delegate that right) actually delegate it or not?
Maybe the law varies, but store owners in Illinois can delegate premises control as far as the right to carry a gun goes, to their employees. Check any large gunshop (G.A.T., Megasports) for an object lesson on all the employees with holstered weapons.
Maybe the law varies, but store owners in Illinois can delegate premises control as far as the right to carry a gun goes, to their employees. Check any large gunshop (G.A.T., Megasports) for an object lesson on all the employees with holstered weapons.
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
It's kinda like the 1st amendment letting you yell fire, but you are responsible for the consequences. When you work for a company, you agree to abide by the company rules. There are many jobs available and many are CCW friendly. He broke many laws here. He didn't have a permit, discharged a weapon in a manner that disturbed the peace, exposed his fellow workers to possible hearing damage, is lucky he didn't kill someone else, and finally :
It was definitely reckless, thus making the intent or knowledge irrelevant.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
In that particular law, the reckless mental condition applies towards his carrying the weapon, not to what happens with the weapon.
For example: Leaving a weapon in a bag you took to the range, then going to work with that bag (gun still inside) the next day qualifies the reckless mental state since a normal person would have taken measures to remove the firearm before going to work. The person may have forgotten the firearm was in the bag, but they were still reckless with it being there.
The reckless mental state for the discharge of a firearm is under a different law. Yeah, he broke that one too.
Whats the pocket have to do with it? Its not his pocket's fault he didn't have the trigger covered anymore than it would have been his waist band's fault if he shot himself with an unholstered gun tucked there.
Actually I find it quite refreshing to see the officer clarifying that the gun didn't just "go off." Usually that sort of clarification is left out of the news stories and winds up leaving the public thinking guns just go off on their own.
Big Boomer
Member
well at least he wasn't carrying mexican style in the front when the ND happened 
He could have lost his inheritance when the family jewels disappeared in the great darwin award caper!
He could have lost his inheritance when the family jewels disappeared in the great darwin award caper!
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Right, the laws are not what the Supreme Court holds them up to be, but what we interpret them to mean in whatever way that makes up happy. Hell, I often drive over the speed limit because there is nothing in the Constitution on speed limits.
You know, when you decide to interpret the laws contrary to the legal system and then get caught because you ended up doing something like shooting yourself through both legs in a place where you don't have permission to carry and while not having a concealed carry license, that is stupid. If you are dumb enough to get caught breaking a law, then you are dumb enough to do time for it. That goes double if you manage to disable yourself in the process.
I am still trying to work out just what sort of pocket carry he had that allowed for the gun to discharge from the pocket and penetrate both legs and then into a bookcase and wall.
BayAreaTactical
Member
OMG Stupidity :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Aguila Blanca
Member
The laws do vary. I don't claim to have reviewed this for all states, but my recollection of those I have reviewed (perhaps a half dozen or so) is that unlicensed carry in a place of business is legal only for the owner of the business -- and that means that ONLY the owner may carry without a license, the owner has no statutory authority to allow employees to carry at his place of business.damien said:
The Texas law seems to follow this model. The business owner would be the person/entity exercising control over the premises. I suppose further investigation might be in order to see if Texas law allows a business or property owner to delegate control to one or more employees, but in the present case the guy is a cube dweller, so it's unlikely he's high enough in the food chain to have been delegated "control" of the premises.
Plus, someone has already posted that the company had not granted permission. (Dunno what the source of that info was, however.)
KelVarnson
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 255
Ah, but unlike speeding, there IS something in the Constitution very clearly affirming the right of the poeple to keep and bear arms. And unlike speeding, the mere possession of a gun does not generally endanger people around you. Generally.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to excuse this guy's boneheaded ND. In my original post I was merely saying that carrying without a permit does not automatically make one a stupid person.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
If that were so, armed security couldn't exist.
Any person acting with the consent of, and as an agent of the owner of the property may act with the full rights of the property owner.
If you were right about Texas law only allowing the property owner, and not employees of the property owner, to carry.. then there would be heaping helps of trouble at all the gunstores. Every non big-box store I've been into, the employees are al carrying.
Property owners carry under the authority of TX PC 46.02(a)(1), while armed security carries under the authority of TX PC 46.15(b)(4).
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01815F.htm
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Read a current version of the penal code. 46.02 was ammended in 1997. There is no 46.02(a)(1) in the current penal code.
Property owners and security both carry under 46.15. (b)(2) and (b)(4) respectively.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm
The penal code at http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm hasn't been updated with the changes from 2007 yet. The DPS booklet has been updated though:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf
Or you can read the changes to TX PC 46.02 and 46.15 here:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01815F.htm
ClickClickD'oh
Member
What? They moved the thing back again? Oh good god, that's the exact same thing it used to say pre 1997.
Dear state reps, stop playing merry go round with the Penal Code.
Well, now we know the current law, and how it originated.
Dear state reps, stop playing merry go round with the Penal Code.
Well, now we know the current law, and how it originated.
MD_Willington
Member
Well his personal injury coverage will not cover him since the injury was not caused by a 9x19mm or a ficus tree...
BTW, I really dislike insurance agents ATM... don't ask!
BTW, I really dislike insurance agents ATM... don't ask!
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
No, not a stupid person, but a stupid act for carrying without a license which is illegal and challenges to the contrary have held up in the courts. So while RKBA is in the Constitution, it has been interpretted to not be absolute. This makes the Constitution argument pretty silly. The guy got caught breaking the law (illegal carry) because he shot himself in both legs with one shot.
It is one thing to have an ND while committing legal activities. It is another to do so while breaking the law. It is still another to do so while breaking the law and have someone get injured or killed.
KelVarnson
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 255
It's hard for me to understand why so many people have such a hard time comprehending the phrase "shall not be infringed". But this is not a RKBA thread really, and I won't try to turn it into one.
"Silly"? I hope you never make it onto a jury. You call people who disregard unconstitutional laws "silly", I think of them as patriots. But I can see this is going nowhere, so why don't we just agree to disagree?
You seem determined to connect the guy's permit status to his recklessness with the gun. An argument can be made that people with permits might be better trained, but you don't have enough information to make that connection in this case. That guy could have been just as reckless if he were carrying legally, and the holes in his legs would be just as big.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
You know, I would like to think such laws are unconstitutional, but the entity under the Constitution responsible for making such determinations, SCOTUS, disagrees. You see, the Constitution is not set up in a way that says it is up to the individual citizen to interpret the law, but the courts, of which SCOTUS is supreme. You don't get to make the determination as to whether or not the law is unconstitutional. Sorry, but the Constitution you cherish does not empower you with that right or responsibility.
I wasn't the one carrying illegally and blasting my own legs. The guy with the gun was. He connected his permit status with his reckless behavior when he had the unintentional discharge, not me.
It would have been just as bad had a person with a permit had the same unintentional discharge in regard to the recklessness, but they would not have been arrested for illegal carry of a conceal weapon. When you are breaking the law, it is not good to call attentional to yourself lest you be caught. Shooting yourself in both legs sort of calls attention to you and then you get busted for the illegal carry. Heck, he probably could not have gotten away if he wanted to, being as humans are bipedal and he shot himself in both legs. It would have been a slow chase.
A Patriot? I would be a whole lot more convinced he was being patriotic if he was making claims to his belief in the Constitution and proclaiming the laws surrounding gun control as being unconstitutional. Maybe he was a silent patriot, or maybe just a careless criminal. In my world, patriots support the law of the land and work within the laws of the land to make a better society, or they overthrow the government of the land and seize power in what is considered treasonous acts by the government formerly in control. This guy didn't seem to be doing anything patriotic, just stupid.
The Annoyed Man
Member
When I worked in an ER, I actually saw several patients over the years - all young males with somewhat sketchy social "memberships" - who had shot themselves in their own peepees by stuffing a .22 down the front of their pants. One of them bagged both his peepee AND his left nut. The interesting thing is that, to a "man," they each had some outlandish tale of how it had happened...
"...Essé knocked me on my ass, man! And when I was down, essé stoops over like this (indicating holding pistol parallel to ground about 12" off the floor) and shot me, man! I wadn't doin' NUTHIN', man!" (While this is going on, the nurse is busy cataloging the patient's possessions, including a pair of boxer shorts with massive and obvious powder burns on the inside...)
I always told the aggrieved party that he should thank God it wasn't a .44.
I don't believe permits were involved.
"...Essé knocked me on my ass, man! And when I was down, essé stoops over like this (indicating holding pistol parallel to ground about 12" off the floor) and shot me, man! I wadn't doin' NUTHIN', man!" (While this is going on, the nurse is busy cataloging the patient's possessions, including a pair of boxer shorts with massive and obvious powder burns on the inside...)
I always told the aggrieved party that he should thank God it wasn't a .44.
I don't believe permits were involved.
- Status
Similar threads
