TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I see the two as the same thing. Apparently you do not. Don't mistake me for supporting the employer's stance, as I don't.

One benefit of this website is seeing the same situation through so many different perspectives. Here I am, completely against restrictions of firearms in the workplace. Then another poster goes and brings up the employer's point of view in one word, Liability. I admit I am dense at times, but that really cleared alot of things up for me.

If an employer gives me any kind of notice, verbal or written, I am personally going to consider it valid notice regardless of the legality. That is just me. Of course, so far that has not occurred at my workplace.

Don't get me wrong. Notice is notice from an employment standpoint. The only requirement I am talking about is the LEGAL ramifications. It must be a 30.06 or oral notice to arrest you. As always, written notice to not do something is good enough to fire you over, but they can't legally have you arrested.

Oh, I totally agree with you from a legal standpoint. As I understand it, legally you could only be arrested if you refuse to leave after having been given notice at the particular time/place that you were "outed".

Gee, time to get folks in an uproar. 1- The company can, and in the case of my employer will terminate you if found with a weapon if the policy or rule prohibits it. I think we can agree to that.
Prosecution under the letter of the law SHOULD NOT occur. But as I have stated more than once on this board I see the day, ( I hope I am wrong) where some employer calls the police, the police officer is not real pro CHL, so he/she makes the arrest after confering with the not real pro CHL assistant district attorney (Harris County) who agrees to accept charges under the premise that the desired and stated intent of the owner supercedes the right of the licencsee, in that the desired or stated intent was known to the employee via the employee handbook. The judge, also not real pro chl, states that the SPIRIT of the law in his mind is that the owner has a greater right to than does the licensee. And the SPIRIT of the law, regardless of wording in the penal code is applied erroneously.
Like i said, I hope I am wrong. But I have seen our courts do dumber things when the law I thought was pretty clear. Personally I wish the legistature would simplify the issue by removing all restrictions on CHL on where they can and cannot carry, except for in a bar or while intoxicated and give business owners immunity from civil process for the actions of a CHL holder on their property.
Just my opinion. If you dont agree exercsie your right to disagree, print this puppy out and use it for toilet paper.

Make sure it isn't photo paper. Its way slick.

dac1842 wrote:Gee, time to get folks in an uproar. 1- The company can, and in the case of my employer will terminate you if found with a weapon if the policy or rule prohibits it. I think we can agree to that.
Prosecution under the letter of the law SHOULD NOT occur. But as I have stated more than once on this board I see the day, ( I hope I am wrong) where some employer calls the police, the police officer is not real pro CHL, so he/she makes the arrest after confering with the not real pro CHL assistant district attorney (Harris County) who agrees to accept charges under the premise that the desired and stated intent of the owner supercedes the right of the licencsee, in that the desired or stated intent was known to the employee via the employee handbook. The judge, also not real pro chl, states that the SPIRIT of the law in his mind is that the owner has a greater right to than does the licensee. And the SPIRIT of the law, regardless of wording in the penal code is applied erroneously.
Like i said, I hope I am wrong. But I have seen our courts do dumber things when the law I thought was pretty clear. Personally I wish the legistature would simplify the issue by removing all restrictions on CHL on where they can and cannot carry, except for in a bar or while intoxicated and give business owners immunity from civil process for the actions of a CHL holder on their property.
Just my opinion. If you dont agree exercsie your right to disagree, print this puppy out and use it for toilet paper.

That's the way I see it also...

"******** ******* employees, third parties and visitors are prohibited from
possessing or conveying weapons or any other prohibited item on
Company property, except as authorized by law."
This is from my companies policy. If I have a CHL and they don't have 30.06 wording, am I legal in carrying to work???

the except as authorized by law pretty much opens the door for you.

Wish my company's policy read like that...

are you hiring?

Being an IT consultant I work in many offices. None of them have a policy regarding carrying. In one office, most of the owners and employees are pro gun and pro NRA. What's your favorite handgun is still a common lunchtime topic.

Kinda wandering off topic.... Slap me if it is too far....

My wife and I own a business... we have about 30 direct employees and about as many contractors and sub-contractors in and out of the office... our weapons policy also states "except as authorized by law"...

I was working in our storage area some weeks ago, was behind a combination locked door, re-arranging storage lockers, shelving and the inventory and had my dress shirt off... exposing my 45 and mag carriers... one of our female employees unexpectedly walked in on me and was quick to excuse herself... (we have a health care company and I am usually the only male in the office with 20+ women)... that night my wife commented that my being armed had quickly gotten around the building rumor mill... and that several employees had come to her and commented about how glad they were to know they were well protected....

sailor2000 wrote:Kinda wandering off topic.... Slap me if it is too far....

My wife and I own a business... we have about 30 direct employees and about as many contractors and sub-contractors in and out of the office... our weapons policy also states "except as authorized by law"...

I was working in our storage area some weeks ago, was behind a combination locked door, re-arranging storage lockers, shelving and the inventory and had my dress shirt off... exposing my 45 and mag carriers... one of our female employees unexpectedly walked in on me and was quick to excuse herself... (we have a health care company and I am usually the only male in the office with 20+ women)... that night my wife commented that my being armed had quickly gotten around the building rumor mill... and that several employees had come to her and commented about how glad they were to know they were well protected....

As the owner of the business, you are under no legal obligation to conceal, as the business property is either owned by you or under your control. On the other hand, what if the woman (or someone else in your company) freaked out about the boss being armed. I'm glad your employees didn't react that way, but that isn't exactly guaranteed these days.

[quote="barres]On the other hand, what if the woman (or someone else in your company) freaked out about the boss being armed. [/quote]

Any employee who freaks out about the owner being armed with a pistol (and I don't flaunt it) is welcome to exercise their right to resign. We have a sign on each building entrance stating, among other things, that there is armed security patrolling the premises.

Our field employees travel all over a 6 county area at all times of the day and night and we do not discourage their taking steps to help insure their safety, on or off duty.

Back around 2000, I had a CHL and worked for a company whose policy said that if an employee was caught with a weapon on them or in their company vehicle, they and their weapon would be turned over to the proper law enforcement authorities. I don't remember the exact wording, but that was the gist of it. It specifically did not state that I couldn't have a weapon, just that they'd turn me over to the police if I did. I carried concealed and just giggled about their policy.

sailor2000 wrote:Any employee who freaks out about the owner being armed with a pistol (and I don't flaunt it) is welcome to exercise their right to resign.

Maybe they can switch jobs with someone stuck at a 30.06 company!

tacticool wrote:

sailor2000 wrote:Any employee who freaks out about the owner being armed with a pistol (and I don't flaunt it) is welcome to exercise their right to resign.

Maybe they can switch jobs with someone stuck at a 30.06 company!

And if our handguns freaked them out they would probably not care at all for the shotgun in my credenza.........

In the CHL class I took this last Saturday, the instructor told us that an employer can give notice to the employee either verbally or written into the policy manual, and that it does not have to comply with 30.06 to be legal notice. There was also a question on the DPS CHL test to this effect.

Most folks here are advising, and it was my own belief, that if the written notice in the policy manual was not in the 30.06 language it was not legal notice under 30.06. Does anyone know what the actual law is on this?