Technical Question Re: Carrying at Work

[AlaskanInTexas]

My employer has a written policy against firearms on the premises. I understand that they are within their rights to do so. My question is - and this is purely hypothetical; I am going to comply - what are the ramifications of ignoring the policy? The way I read the statutes, it would not be trespass under 30.06 (assuming they don't have a 30.06 sign). The employer would simply be allowed to fire/discipline you for disobeying policy. Any thoughts? Again, just to be clear, I am going to comply with the policy and am not condoning people carrying at work if their employer prohibits doing so.

[MasterOfNone]

My employer has a written policy against firearms on the premises. I understand that they are within their rights to do so. My question is - and this is purely hypothetical; I am going to comply - what are the ramifications of ignoring the policy? The way I read the statutes, it would not be trespass under 30.06 (assuming they don't have a 30.06 sign). The employer would simply be allowed to fire/discipline you for disobeying policy. Any thoughts? Again, just to be clear, I am going to comply with the policy and am not condoning people carrying at work if their employer prohibits doing so.

Unless the employer gives you notice that satisfies 30.06, it is not a criminal offense; it is just a violation of a company policy, like sleeping at your desk. But once any 30.06 notice is given (such as verbally mentioning the policy in a staff meeting), you must immediately leave to avoid a criminal charge.
And if you're the guy scurrying for the door after such a mention, I bet they know you were carrying.

[RottenApple]

My employer has a written policy against firearms on the premises. I understand that they are within their rights to do so. My question is - and this is purely hypothetical; I am going to comply - what are the ramifications of ignoring the policy? The way I read the statutes, it would not be trespass under 30.06 (assuming they don't have a 30.06 sign). The employer would simply be allowed to fire/discipline you for disobeying policy. Any thoughts? Again, just to be clear, I am going to comply with the policy and am not condoning people carrying at work if their employer prohibits doing so.

Are we talking about in the building or just leaving it in your car when you're at work? Right now they could discipline you or terminate your employment if they find out about either one. However, thanks to the Parking Lot bill that was passed, after September 1st they can no longer fire you for having a firearm in your vehicle.

Of course, Texas is a right to work state and they can fire you without a reason so.....

[Tamie]

Not illegal unless there's 30.06 notice. They can fire you, but they can do that for millions of other reasons too.

[AlaskanInTexas]

But once any 30.06 notice is given (such as verbally mentioning the policy in a staff meeting), you must immediately leave to avoid a criminal charge.
And if you're the guy scurrying for the door after such a mention, I bet they know you were carrying.

Okay, let's take this a step further. I work for a large company (2000+ employees worldwide). At a staff meeting for a small department (about 20 of us) I mentioned the policy. Three bosses were present at the meeting; two of them carry and were unaware of the policy. All present treated the policy with great disdain. Should I treat our conversation as verbal 30.06 notice? I know the real world answer is call an attorney or error on the side of not getting a trespass charge, but we are in hypothetical land, so let me know what you think.

[RottenApple]

Okay, let's take this a step further. I work for a large company (2000+ employees worldwide). At a staff meeting for a small department (about 20 of us) I mentioned the policy. Three bosses were present at the meeting; two of them carry and were unaware of the policy. All present treated the policy with great disdain. Should I treat our conversation as verbal 30.06 notice? I know the real world answer is call an attorney or error on the side of not getting a trespass charge, but we are in hypothetical land, so let me know what you think.

It is my understanding that since you were aware of the policy, you were in violation and could have been charged with criminal trespass (and still can if you continue to carry there). Assuming the other 2 CHLers in your meeting were not aware of the policy, once you mentioned it, they could have been charged with criminal trespass if they did not remove themselves from the premises.

But, IANAL so what do I know.

[paulhailes]

Okay, let's take this a step further. I work for a large company (2000+ employees worldwide). At a staff meeting for a small department (about 20 of us) I mentioned the policy. Three bosses were present at the meeting; two of them carry and were unaware of the policy. All present treated the policy with great disdain. Should I treat our conversation as verbal 30.06 notice? I know the real world answer is call an attorney or error on the side of not getting a trespass charge, but we are in hypothetical land, so let me know what you think.

It is my understanding that since you were aware of the policy, you were in violation and could have been charged with criminal trespass (and still can if you continue to carry there). Assuming the other 2 CHLers in your meeting were not aware of the policy, once you mentioned it, they could have been charged with criminal trespass if they did not remove themselves from the premises.

But, IANAL so what do I know.

I'm not sure that is 100% correct, but would defiantly err on the side of caution. For one, unless the notice was 30.06 compliant then its simply company policy. Also to give verbal notice it must be by someone with apparent authority, the OP did not have authority over his bosses. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[SewTexas]

understanding we're in hypothetical land, but I have worked in corporate world...and hypothetically if that meeting were to happen, you would probably find yourself on the short list for the next lay-off. You knew that your two bosses carried, you're the one who brought up the policy, you apparently are the 'good boy' who doesn't carry...etc, Don't do it. If you want to keep your job, keep your gun in your car, and your mouth closed.

[AlaskanInTexas]

understanding we're in hypothetical land, but I have worked in corporate world...and hypothetically if that meeting were to happen, you would probably find yourself on the short list for the next lay-off. You knew that your two bosses carried, you're the one who brought up the policy, you apparently are the 'good boy' who doesn't carry...etc, Don't do it. If you want to keep your job, keep your gun in your car, and your mouth closed.

Here is how it went down: Before the meeting I didn't know that two of my bosses carried. In casual conversation before the meeting started, one of the bosses mentioned that he thought it was a good idea for women to get CHL's. I mentioned that I had just applied for my CHL but was chagrined that the company policy against firearms at work or in the parking lot made it difficult to carry during the week. I saw looks of surprise from two of the bosses, who then told me that they had never seen the policy. They then told me that they had been carrying for years, and that they weren't about to stop now. No harm done.

[Oldgringo]

Not illegal unless there's 30.06 notice. They can fire you, but they can do that for millions of other reasons too.

...or for no reason...

[SewTexas]

Ah, OK, now they know they're breaking the rule, they say they've never seen the policy, don't worry about them. You've seen the policy, take care of yourself. What I would do however is re-study the policy in light of the new parking lot law, you might find that you can keep in your car starting in Sept.

[WildBill]

My employer has a written policy against firearms on the premises. I understand that they are within their rights to do so. My question is - and this is purely hypothetical; I am going to comply - what are the ramifications of ignoring the policy?

The hypothetical ramifications are that you will get fired, not be elibible for unemployment payments, having to say that you were fired from your job for cause, and not be able to get good references from your previous employer.

[Skiprr]

Based on AlaskanInTexas' original question, let’s completely ignore for a moment the issue of a company’s ability to terminate and look only at what is and is not an offense under the law (i.e., criminal trespass by a CHL carrying a concealed handgun, a Class A misdemeanor). Simple “awareness” of a company no-guns policy does not come into play. In large part, that’s because proving “awareness” in and of itself is a difficult thing to do.

That’s why §30.06 of the Penal Code is so explicit. To be in violation, you must be carrying under authority of your CHL on the property of another without consent, and you must have received effective notice.

That notice must be given by the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act on the owner’s behalf. There are only two forms of notice that are considered valid. First, the property owner or someone acting on the owner’s behalf may tell you, orally, that you cannot carry a concealed handgun on the property. Second, the property owner or someone acting on the owner’s behalf may post a sign or give you a card or other document—including an employee policy statement—that includes language identical to that shown in PC §30.06(3)(A). If it is a sign posted on the property, it must meet other requirements, including being both in English and Spanish, appearing in contrasting colors and block letters at least one-inch high, and being displayed in a conspicuous manner.

There are two types of communication referenced in Chapter 30 of the Penal Code: oral and written. The word “verbal” does not appear anywhere in Chapter 30, but when you read discussions here about PC §30.06, almost everyone uses “verbal.” It’s kind of interesting that when, once in a while, someone notes the distinction between “verbal” and “oral” that it’s pretty much dismissed, but let somebody write “clip” instead of “magazine” and he’s rapidly corrected almost every time.

The distinction among “oral,” “written,” and “verbal” is far more important than that between “clip” and “magazine.” It’s more important because that’s the way the law is written.

“Verbal” means “of, in, or pertaining to words.” Both oral and written language is verbal. “Oral” means “uttered through the mouth; spoken.”

A person in authority over the property can tell you, orally, that you cannot carry, and that’s good enough for the law. You’ve been given effective notice; there is no requirement that any particular language be used.

For example, if an HR representative, acting on behalf of the company that owns the property, tells you orally during your indoctrination meeting that firearms are forbidden, then you have been given effective notice and are guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if you carry.

If your co-worker John Smith, who sits one cubicle over, says to you at the coffee machine one day, “You know, the company has a policy against carrying guns, CHL or no,” that is not effective notice because John Smith is not a person in authority acting on behalf of the property owner. The OP did not give effective notice to the two bosses in the scenario he described because he is not in a position to give effective oral notice to anyone (at least, I’m making the assumption that he is not).

If the notice is given in writing, to be effective it must read, exactly: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun.”

So to put this one to bed, a no-gun policy written in an employee handbook is not effective notice under PC §30.06 unless it includes the identical language shown in the Penal Code.

If the employee handbook does not use the exact language from PC §30.06 can you still be fired? Sure you can. Can you be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor based on that employee handbook as notification? Nope.

(Of course, IANAL, so never trust anything from me that looks like legal advice. Always do your own research. )

[WildBill]

So to put this one to bed, a no-gun policy written in an employee handbook is not effective notice under PC §30.06 unless it includes the identical language shown in the Penal Code.

If the employee handbook does not use the exact language from PC §30.06 can you still be fired? Sure you can. Can you be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor based on that employee handbook as notification? Nope.

A person in authority over the property can tell you, orally, that you cannot carry, and that’s good enough for the law. You’ve been given effective notice; there is no requirement that any particular language be used.

For example, if an HR representative, acting on behalf of the company that owns the property, tells you orally during your indoctrination meeting that firearms are forbidden, then you have been given effective notice and are guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if you carry.

(Of course, IANAL, so never trust anything from me that looks like legal advice. Always do your own research. )

Except the highlighted part should be you have committed an offense. You are innocent until proven guilty.

[Skiprr]

For example, if an HR representative, acting on behalf of the company that owns the property, tells you orally during your indoctrination meeting that firearms are forbidden, then you have been given effective notice and are guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if you carry.

Except you for the highlighted part should be you have committed an offense.

Yep; you're right. Only the judicial system can determine if you are guilty. Freudian slip, I guess, 'cause I'd know I was guilty if I carried after receiving effective notice...