TexasCHLforum.com

Trivera wrote:Currently at my job we no 30.06 or 30.07 signs but the manager says we aren't allowed to carry at work... Should I go against his words cause they don't have any signs up or listen and don't carry at all

Two considerations here...

1. 411.203 allows an employer to be free from an prohibition from restricting an employee from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business. Nothing is mentioned about open carry but this is almost certainly an legislative oversight. Your employer may tell you what you can and can't do regarding carrying handguns on the premises of his business.

2. The mere fact that your employer tells you that you can not carry on the premises of the business means that you have received 30.06/.07 notification (initial notification) making it a criminal Class C misdemeanor to enter onto or remain on the premises with the handgun. If prosecuted at trial and it can be shown that you refused to leave after being warned again to leave, that Class C can be upgraded to a Class A. It is arguable that the initial oral notification and subsequent refusal to leave (as demonstrated by your refusal to comply with his wishes and ignoring the notification and carrying at work anyway) might be qualification for the Class A in the first place.

AND........

Since you are committing a crime by ignoring the oral notification you are diminishing your legal options at trial, should you be involved in a shooting at work, such as presumption of reasonableness regarding immediate necessity, etc.

Lesson here....

Stay legal. The "I would rather be alive than legal" argument carries with it many legal pitfalls.

tex

But does that carry over to company vehicles off site with only the driver, no other clients or coworkers, as a legal issue, or just an HR issue? Is the vehicle considered 'premises'?

IANAL At that point it becomes a HR issue. Does your employer have vehicle searches? Do you drive into prohibited establishments? i.e. chemical plants. If your employer has a prohibition on firearms in the vehicle you will be/probably fired by HR if discovered. They could push to the legal arena but I doubt it.

I drive a company truck and I do not know what the company policy is because I have not asked, and they have not told me.

NNT wrote:But does that carry over to company vehicles off site with only the driver, no other clients or coworkers, as a legal issue, or just an HR issue? Is the vehicle considered 'premises'?

No, a company vehicle is not considered a "premises" under the several definitions in the LTC laws. But they don't need to be because company vehicles are dealt with specifically.

Government Code
411.203 clarifies that "this subchapter" (411) does not "prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business."

Ok, so 411 does not prevent or limit employer's rights ON THE PREMISES OF THE BUSINESS.

Now, let's go to the Labor Code 52.061. Since, so far in 411, no employer rights have been restricted ON THE PREMISES OF THE BUSINESS, 52.061 DOES RESTRICT the employer from prohibiting an employee "...who holds a license to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Ok, so the employee CAN NOT BE RESTRICTED at least as far as the EMPLOYER is concerned, in the parking lot in a privately owned vehicle.

Finally, 52.062 tells us that this employer restriction does not apply to a vehicle owned or leased by the employer.

But!!!!! There is an exception to this exception.

52.062 states..."...unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee’s duties;" at which time the employer is restricted again.

So, yes, an employer may restrict an LTC employee from carrying in a company vehicle except in one situation.

tex

I carried concealed for over a year not telling anyone. I worked the front desk at a hotel, 3rd shift. Twice the hotel was held up, once they showed a gun, both times was my night off.

Oral communication to the employee by the employer is notification just as a 30. sign is notification. Walking past or ignoring the sign is a Class C misdemeanor, only when you do not immediately leave when told to do so is it a Class A misdemeanor. So I believe it would be a Class C if the employee left when told to do so or if he did not loose his job it may be considered a Class A if the employee returned and still was carrying. The employee may become unemployed, but the employer would not be very smart if this was not in writing instead of just oral.

Different scenario at my workplace: Company's Employee Handbook has "no guns allowed" in it, however the owner of the company gave verbal authority to carry to LTC holders.

bblhd672 wrote:Different scenario at my workplace: Company's Employee Handbook has "no guns allowed" in it, however the owner of the company gave verbal authority to carry to LTC holders.

The "no guns allowed" in the handbook has muscle behind it because of two things...

1. 411.203 doesn't bestow a right but rather DOES NOT RESTRICT an employer from prohibiting an employee from carrying in his business. It does not prescribe how the employer makes that known to the employee, so a handbook is not specified and thus, presumably, an acceptable method of notification to employees.

2. In Texas the employer can terminate the employment of a person for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason, as long as the reason does not violate some other unlawful employment practice.

So simply because an employee is under threat of termination due to failure to "PLEASE" the employer would stop most employees from violating company policy.

In addition, had the employer orally conveyed this policy to the employee, or used 30.06/.07 language in the document or handbook, the employee would also be in a status of having been notified per 30.06/.07 and thus under those statute's authority.

The employer giving verbal authority for LTCs to carry gave his consent and thus nullifies the prohibitive effects of 30.06/.07.

tex

twomillenium wrote:Oral communication to the employee by the employer is notification just as a 30. sign is notification. Walking past or ignoring the sign is a Class C misdemeanor, only when you do not immediately leave when told to do so is it a Class A misdemeanor. So I believe it would be a Class C if the employee left when told to do so or if he did not loose his job it may be considered a Class A if the employee returned and still was carrying. The employee may become unemployed, but the employer would not be very smart if this was not in writing instead of just oral.

If it can be shown at trial that he refused to leave after having been given 30.06 or 30.07 notice as per Subsection (c) of those Sections. Returning later with a gun after having been orally notified would certainly be considered refusing to leave at trial.

tex

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the only thing the OP has done wrong so far is ask his manager about it. The OP doesn't indicate whether or not he was carrying at the time and I get the feeling that he wasn't, so there was no need to leave immediately upon receiving oral notification.

thetexan wrote:

twomillenium wrote:Oral communication to the employee by the employer is notification just as a 30. sign is notification. Walking past or ignoring the sign is a Class C misdemeanor, only when you do not immediately leave when told to do so is it a Class A misdemeanor. So I believe it would be a Class C if the employee left when told to do so or if he did not loose his job it may be considered a Class A if the employee returned and still was carrying. The employee may become unemployed, but the employer would not be very smart if this was not in writing instead of just oral.

If it can be shown at trial that he refused to leave after having been given 30.06 or 30.07 notice as per Subsection (c) of those Sections. Returning later with a gun after having been orally notified would certainly be considered refusing to leave at trial.

tex

NNT wrote:I assume a work vehicle is considered the same as the office? If verbally informed guns are not allowed in vehicles during new hire orientation, and one is found at later date, it is a legal matter as well as a firing offence?

Work vehicle is their property - so if notice was given the answer is yes to both.

This is just me but i would be finding another job , i carry all day every day and i am getting to the point where i could care less about sings because why the heck should i respect their rights when they dont respect mine !

Back before I was self employed, I always carried. Usually a small pistol that was easy to conceal. Never a problem.

"No ask, no tell" coupled with "concealed means concealed" gets the job done. Each company had a generic "no weapons" policy in the employee handbook but nothing too detailed. My first boss carried an LCP in a Sneaky Pete...

You have to make your own decision whether it is better to be alive and unemployed, alive and in prison, or dead.

Remember... if there is not a metal detector and an X-ray scanner, it is NOT a gun free zone.

Kenneth77 wrote:This is just me but i would be finding another job , i carry all day every day and i am getting to the point where i could care less about sings because why the heck should i respect their rights when they dont respect mine !

Depends on one's job, where one is at their career, and what the restrictions are. I am retired know but during my career, once I had my CHL I was pretty much allowed to conceal carry in office. I considered myself lucky. However, I was required to visit and work in many places. Manufacturing oil and chemical and food processing plants. Almost every place required the entrants to be disarmed. While I didn't like it, I liked more job even more. These days, I do some volunteer work that requires me to be unarmed. I don't like it, but to do what I think is more important stuff, I accept it.