Steamrolled by the Paver of Good Intentions

[TexasCajun]

So yesterday we had our quarterly update meeting at work.  Someone posted a question using our anonymous suggestion site asking if the company would reconsider allowing licensed concealed carry at work.  Our current policy / employee handbook uses the standard ‘no firearms’ and ‘no weapons’ allowed on site verbiage.  And while I understand that my job is at risk in doing so, I’ve started to carry at work more & more.  Well the question was read and answered by our EVP of Human Resources – upholding the written policy.  As I understand (maybe) the law, if I were to continue carrying at work I would face possible criminal trespass charges in addition to possible termination.  The EVP of HR is certainly in authority over the matter, and the meeting is recorded & streamed for our offsite associates.
 
I can understand why the person did what they did, but I really wish that they hadn’t.  I would have been more than happy to continue to fly under the radar.  And unless the original post was edited before the meeting, the person didn’t make much of a case.  So since the EVP was rather flip in part of his response, and since this Pandora’s box has been opened & I’m not drawing attention to something out of the blue, I plan to use the suggestion site to make a better argument for a change in the policy.  I’m going to use Charles Cotton’s TFC article supporting HB 3218 (with citation, of course) and information from the 30.06 response cards to start.
 
I’ll let y’all know how things turn out.

[Jumping Frog]

Yep, I would also consider that to be verbal notification.

Too bad, you went from being able to carry to forbidden to carry in the space of one numbskull anonymous question.

[rotor]

I am an employer and I don't restrict legal carry. But in this case you are no worse off now then before. Just because the question was raised didn't change anything because you knew that you were in violation of office policy all along. The question just reinforced it. The only question I have is could you be arrested for carry since you have been given notice and are neglecting to comply. Fire you? For sure. Arrest- bad thing.

[RX8er]

suggestions boxes

But in this case you are no worse off now then before. Just because the question was raised didn't change anything because you knew that you were in violation of office policy all along. The question just reinforced it.

He is much worse off because now he has been given effective verbal notice.

The only question I have is could you be arrested for carry since you have been given notice.....

Yes, he could be arrested because him employer gave him verbal notice that no guns are allowed on the premise. This is not different than going to an unposted business and the store owner telling everyone as they walk in that no guns are allowed. You have been notified and cannot carry.


It is all right in the very top of 30.06:

§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

[Jaguar]

I am an employer and I don't restrict legal carry. But in this case you are no worse off now then before. Just because the question was raised didn't change anything because you knew that you were in violation of office policy all along. The question just reinforced it. The only question I have is could you be arrested for carry since you have been given notice and are neglecting to comply. Fire you? For sure. Arrest- bad thing.

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or

According to 30.06 above, if you receive notice that entry is forbidden, you are in violation. So if in the meeting they say, "Even if you have a CHL, you cannot carry in these premises" and you do, you are in violation of the law and guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

It does change things - if the communication is written, it must be in the form of the wording of 30.06, oral communication can be a simple, "no CHLs allowed".

[3dfxMM]

They don't even have to mention CHLs. Just saying "no guns allowed" is good enough.

[rotor]

It was my understanding that if you knew carry was not allowed by reference to the employee handbook then you could not carry on the job. I don't believe the written handbook has to be in 30-06 terms, it just has to be there. Same for verbal. So why does this put you at more risk now? Seems that the only difference is that you knew it was not allowed before and that has been formally clarified that it is not allowed. My question I guess is can they arrest you? I know they can fire you.

[G26ster]

It was my understanding that if you knew carry was not allowed by reference to the employee handbook then you could not carry on the job. I don't believe the written handbook has to be in 30-06 terms, it just has to be there. Same for verbal. So why does this put you at more risk now? Seems that the only difference is that you knew it was not allowed before and that has been formally clarified that it is not allowed. My question I guess is can they arrest you? I know they can fire you.

Written notice NOT in proper 30.06 language = you can be fired, but have broken no law.

Written notice in proper 30.06 language = you can be fired AND have violated the law.

Verbal notice, in any terms indicating you may not carry = you can be fired AND have violated the law.

Prior to the meeting, the company did not have proper 30.06 language in the manual, so the employee could only be fired. After the meeting, when
employees were "verbally/orally" told that they may not carry, the employee can be fired, AND has violated the law if they carry at work. MHO, and I am not a lawyer.

[Jumping Frog]

It was my understanding that if you knew carry was not allowed by reference to the employee handbook then you could not carry on the job. I don't believe the written handbook has to be in 30-06 terms, it just has to be there. Same for verbal. So why does this put you at more risk now? Seems that the only difference is that you knew it was not allowed before and that has been formally clarified that it is not allowed. My question I guess is can they arrest you? I know they can fire you.

People confuse the issue of being fired versus being criminally charged.

Before this HR meeting, with non-30.06 signs and non-30.06 language in the handbook, the employee cannot be criminally charged but the employee can certainly be fired.

Once the HR person gave verbal notice that that "Firearms are forbidden" (any language to that effect is valid), now the employee is on notice and can be both criminally charged and fired.

[rotor]

Thank you for the clarification. As an employer I do not restrict my employees so it has not been an issue. So, if I did restrict I would have to have the standard 30-06 language in my manual in english and spanish I assume, any size font (?), and then if an employee was carrying they could be fired and would be in violation of the law. Of course in Texas, you can fire anyone anyhow.

[Jumping Frog]

Of course in Texas, you can fire anyone anyhow.

Exactly.

When I have fired people, I usually stick withe the "your services are no longer needed" approach. There is no upside and potential downside for getting into reasons for termination.

[howdy]

It was my understanding that if you knew carry was not allowed by reference to the employee handbook then you could not carry on the job. I don't believe the written handbook has to be in 30-06 terms, it just has to be there. Same for verbal. So why does this put you at more risk now? Seems that the only difference is that you knew it was not allowed before and that has been formally clarified that it is not allowed. My question I guess is can they arrest you? I know they can fire you.

Written notice NOT in proper 30.06 language = you can be fired, but have broken no law.

Written notice in proper 30.06 language = you can be fired AND have violated the law.

Verbal notice, in any terms indicating you may not carry = you can be fired AND have violated the law.

Prior to the meeting, the company did not have proper 30.06 language in the manual, so the employee could only be fired. After the meeting, when
employees were "verbally/orally" told that they may not carry, the employee can be fired, AND has violated the law if they carry at work. MHO, and I am not a lawyer.

[RX8er]

Of course in Texas, you can fire anyone anyhow.

Exactly.

When I have fired people, I usually stick withe the "your services are no longer needed" approach. There is no upside and potential downside for getting into reasons for termination.

I never give a reason other than "your services are no longer needed". No matter how they ask!

[TexasCajun]

The EVP of HR was answering a question regarding CHL holders being allowed to carry. So CHL carry was included in the no weapons policy.

[suthdj]

Can they prove you saw the video? If not I guess it is a mute point.