TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Possibly. But they would have to PROVE that they so informed you. Just saying that they did it would not be enough. For example, just what did they say, EXACTLY?

That's easy to do. The companies that I've worked for who've given me an employee handbook have, without exception, made me sign a form stating that I'd read it. All they'd have to do to prove I'd been informed would be to pull that form out of my file.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Finally, if anyone has ever been prosecuted in TX under these circumstances I would like to know about it.

I doubt they have been. I'd certainly be willing to agree that it's an unlikely scenario, but I also don't want anyone to be confused into thinking that the *only* way they could ever possibly be prosecuted for criminal trespass by a license holder is if the building is posted with a §30.06 sign, and be lulled into ignoring other potentially legally valid notifications.

Xander wrote: That's easy to do. The companies that I've worked for who've given me an employee handbook have, without exception, made me sign a form stating that I'd read it. All they'd have to do to prove I'd been informed would be to pull that form out of my file.

So you signed a form saying you've read it. So what? Maybe you missed that part. Who knows?

So what did they say when they gave you VERBAL notification?

Also, does the manual say people would be prosecuted for tresspass if they carried, or that it was merely cause for termination?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So what did they say when they gave you VERBAL notification?

Also, does the manual say people would be prosecuted for tresspass if they carried, or that it was merely cause for termination?

In my case, they had an oral presentation with PowerPoint slides, in addition to the printed manual.

IMHO, people overthink this issue. Few companies are going to have you arrested. Every arrest is on the police blotter, and the news services check it. The company would risk having news stories about an employee being arrested with a gun. If it's a walk-in business like a retail store, that could affect sales.

A Weyerhauser plant in Oklahoma fired eight employees at once for having weapons in their vehicles, and it backfired big-time (from the employers' point of view: Oklahoma passed a law allowing employees to have weapons in their vehicles in company parking lots.

I think they will offer to let you quit, and then fire you for cause if you don't.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote: So you signed a form saying you've read it. So what? Maybe you missed that part. Who knows?

Doesn't matter. Same as as §30.06 sign. They don't have to prove that you saw it and ignored it. They just have to have a sign that meets the requirements. If they have a handbook with a policy that meets the §30.06 written notification requirement, and you sign a statement saying that you've read it, any reasonable person is going to consider that to be adequate notification. All the statute requires is that you be given a document with the required language. Nowhere does it require that the property owner prove that you read those specific words.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: So what did they say when they gave you VERBAL notification?

Again...The point is that they *could*. That is clear from the statute. If they can convince a cop that you were given verbal notice, he isn't going to put up with you trying to play lawyer right there in front of him. He's going to haul you off, and you may be unpleasantly surprised in court if they can, in fact, give adequate evidence that you were notified.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Also, does the manual say people would be prosecuted for tresspass if they carried, or that it was merely cause for termination?

In this hypothetical case the manual has the language required for written notification that is specified in §30.06(c)(3)(A).

seamusTX wrote: IMHO, people overthink this issue. Few companies are going to have you arrested. Every arrest is on the police blotter, and the news services check it. The company would risk having news stories about an employee being arrested with a gun. If it's a walk-in business like a retail store, that could affect sales.

- Jim

I agree that it's highly unlikely that you would be arrested. I also agree that most company "no guns" policies don't meet the §30.06 requirements for notification, and are not legally valid. I do not agree that it's ok to tell people that they can't be arrested, only fired, unless there's a §30.06 sign. The sign is only one of several ways that company can notify employees that carrying a handgun on premises is illegal.

Xander wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Also, does the manual say people would be prosecuted for tresspass if they carried, or that it was merely cause for termination?

In this hypothetical case the manual has the language required for written notification that is specified in §30.06(c)(3)(A).

Anybody ever see a company manual with this language?

Xander wrote:I do not agree that it's ok to tell people that they can't be arrested, only fired, unless there's a §30.06 sign. The sign is only one of several ways that company can notify employees that carrying a handgun on premises is illegal.

I agree.

The scenario most likely to get you arrested is that someone "makes" you and calls 911 or the company security guards, who call 911. In that case, the responding police officer may well arrest you just to get things sorted out.

Charges would probably be dropped in that case.

Many CHL holders who were doing nothing illegal were arrested in the early days of CHL, and in some cases bogus charges were pressed against them.

- Jim

RPBrown wrote:As with a lot of companies, insurance requires them to have it in the manuel.

THIS is something that I have a serious problem with. I hate the fact that companies think that a policy about weapons makes them less liable if something happens.

In my opinion, the company becomes MORE liable if they disarm a legally armed citizen. By disarming me and removing my ability to protect myself, they have taken on complete responsibility for my safety.

If I am at work and am not carrying because of the company policy and something happens and I am injured in a situation where I would have been able to defend myself... you can bet yer booties that I will be suing them for failing to protect me after they denied me my legal right to protect myself.

My company policy also prohibits weapons stored in cars - preventing me from carrying during my commute. If I were to obey this foolish requirement and have an incident occur during my commute - I would be suing them for denying me my right to defend myself during my commute.

If this happened a few times, employers would realize that banning all guns is not some miracle cure for lawsuits... and they might stop making these ridiculous policies.

Sangiovese wrote: THIS is something that I have a serious problem with. I hate the fact that companies think that a policy about weapons makes them less liable if something happens.

In my opinion, the company becomes MORE liable if they disarm a legally armed citizen. By disarming me and removing my ability to protect myself, they have taken on complete responsibility for my safety.

If I am at work and am not carrying because of the company policy and something happens and I am injured in a situation where I would have been able to defend myself... you can bet yer booties that I will be suing them for failing to protect me after they denied me my legal right to protect myself.

My company policy also prohibits weapons stored in cars - preventing me from carrying during my commute. If I were to obey this foolish requirement and have an incident occur during my commute - I would be suing them for denying me my right to defend myself during my commute.

If this happened a few times, employers would realize that banning all guns is not some miracle cure for lawsuits... and they might stop making these ridiculous policies.

The truth is I don't believe anyone has successfully sued because they were forced to be unarmed.

Liberty wrote: The truth is I don't believe anyone has successfully sued because they were forced to be unarmed.

Yes, but the odds of a CHL being disarmed and the victim of violence are extremely small.

I know of one case at my company several years ago where an individual had purchased a new handgun at lunch. He came back and was showing someone the gun in the parking lot. It was unloaded and taken out of the box in the trunk of his car. Someone saw the gun and reported him. Company policy is no guns on property and we sign an agreement that includes the policy.

He was fired and consulted two different lawyers. They both stated that he had entered into a binding contract with the signing of the agreement and would not have a leg to stand on in court. He was able to plea bargain it into a voluntary resignation.

Liberty wrote: The truth is I don't believe anyone has successfully sued because they were forced to be unarmed.

I don't think anyone has ever lost a suit like that either. To my knowledge it has never been tested in court.

I *WILL* be the test case if I am ever a victime of violence while disarmed by my employer's policy.

Keith B wrote:I know of one case at my company several years ago where an individual had purchased a new handgun at lunch. He came back and was showing someone the gun in the parking lot. It was unloaded and taken out of the box in the trunk of his car. Someone saw the gun and reported him. Company policy is no guns on property and we sign an agreement that includes the policy.

He was fired and consulted two different lawyers. They both stated that he had entered into a binding contract with the signing of the agreement and would not have a leg to stand on in court. He was able to plea bargain it into a voluntary resignation.

Firing over a violation of company policy is a no brainer. I don't think anyone will argue that in order to fire you over it, they would have had to give you proper 30.06 notice.

However, legal action for criminal trespass can only be be successfully prosecuted if you had been given proper notification (either verbal notification of any kind, or written notification with the proper wording). You can always be arrested for it... but you'll beat it if notice wasn't given.

In my case, I was never given verbal notification. The written company policy is not proper 30.06. I don't carry because I like my job and don't want to lose it. If I did carry at work, I would expect to be fired if caught, but not arrested.

TX CHL Laws 2007-2008
Page27
GC §411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter 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.

TX CHL Laws 2007-2008
Page 71
Q: Can a license holder have a handgun in the license holder’s
vehicle in a school parking lot?
A: A license holder is not prohibited from having a handgun in his or
her vehicle in a school parking lot. (School employees should know
and comply with their employer’s policy on this point.) However, it is a
criminal offense for any person who is on school property to exhibit,
use, or threaten to exhibit or use a firearm.

An employer DOES NOT have to post 30.06 sign or lanuage.

Mike

mikeloc wrote: An employer DOES NOT have to post 30.06 sign or lanuage.

Just to clarify they don't have to use 30.06 notice to fire an employee, but they do have to give 30.06 notice for someone to be prosecuted. And since public employers can't give 30.06 notice...