TexasCHLforum.com

Toadstone wrote: "Possession of firearms, explosives, or any lethal weapon on company property, in accordance with state law"

I keep reading this portion and have started to wonder if it could mean any other lethal weapon as defined by state law.

That's almost exactly what my company policy states. I called my HR department and asked if this means I can carry in the office if I have a CHL. My HR department replied that if I have a CHL then state law allows me to carry so they are ok with it.

Of course, your mileage may vary. It's moot with me anyway since my company closed the office and everyone now works from home.

This is very oddly worded. You said the list of things that will get you terminated includes "Possession of firearms, explosives, or any lethal weapon on company property, in accordance with state law". The quoted phrase equates to "carrying legally", which would mean that carrying legally would get you fired. Now if it said "... in violation of state law" it would make sense.

C-dub wrote:I don't know. Adding that little part at the end makes the sentence nonsensical.

I must agree with C-dub. I don't know either. Even after all this helpful (?) discussion I suspect the OP still doesn't know. "That little part at the end" at least, in my opinion, makes the sentence ambiguous, demonstrated clearly by the differing readings we have had here.

When one interprets an ambiguous policy as meaning what he wants it to mean, while knowing it is ambiguous and may mean just the opposite, he is sticking his neck out. It can even be argued that the person thereupon has an obligation to find out what it means from the person responsible for the policy. The general consensus on this question appears to be what it usually is when this question comes up on this forum: "Ignore it. Concealed is concealed, regardless of what it means."

It must be realized that those who give this advice do not have a dog in the hunt, and they have no stake in the correctness of the advice. If an issue like this comes to the crunch, good luck telling your boss, "But the CHL forum said...."

Fine, if that is your decision, but you must be prepared to accept the consequences, whatever they are, should they eventuate. Yours truly would be irresponsible to attempt an answer to the question asked by the OP, because, like C-dub, "I don't know."

And I cannot help but repeat this, as I have said over and over. Anything one puts in an email, or, particularly, puts on a public forum, should be considered seen by all the world. This very discussion, should it go public, demonstrates to all concerned that the OP should know that the statement is ambiguous, and that he has admitted publicly that he does not know what the policy really is. As I put it above, he must be prepared to accept the possible consequences of his personal decision.

Elmo

b322da wrote:

C-dub wrote:I don't know. Adding that little part at the end makes the sentence nonsensical.

I must agree with C-dub. I don't know either. Even after all this helpful (?) discussion I suspect the OP still doesn't know. "That little part at the end" at least, in my opinion, makes the sentence ambiguous, demonstrated clearly by the differing readings we have had here.

This won't help much either, but...
In a contract dispute, where the wording of the contract is ambiguous, a court will side against the party that authored the ambiguous statement -- at least as I understand it.

sjfcontrol wrote: This won't help much either, but...
In a contract dispute, where the wording of the contract is ambiguous, a court will side against the party that authored the ambiguous statement -- at least as I understand it.

As a general rule you understand exactly right, sjf. If when the OP chooses to fish or cut bait he wants his ultimate question to be decided by a judge, after all that has been spread around on this thread, that is his decision. That is what I meant by "accepting the consequences," or, put another way, he must be prepared to live with it, and accept it gracefully if he draws the short straw.

But, once again, he must not forget that his Texas employer can fire him for no reason at all, with certain limitations not in issue here. If the employer keeps his mouth shut, as some have advised the OP to do, lots of luck getting his case into a courtroom after he is let go. It has been done, but not very often. Nor would it be likely that a judge would approach this question in advance as a hypothetical matter, although there is arguably a judicial way to attempt that, particularly since any ambiguity can be cured by the employer by a stroke of the pen.

I may be wrong, but I suspect the OP doesn't want a lawsuit; he most likely just wants to keep his job.

Elmo

C-dub wrote:

Toadstone wrote: "Possession of firearms, explosives, or any lethal weapon on company property, in accordance with state law"

I keep reading this portion and have started to wonder if it could mean any other lethal weapon as defined by state law.

Is it possible that the HQ is in another state, and that they wrote their policy according to that state's laws? To me it sounds as though the state they are in prohibits any type of weapon. Maybe Illinois?

I read it this way:
Possession of firearms on company property, in accordance with state law.
Possession of explosives on company property, in accordance with state law.
Possession of any lethal weapon on company property, in accordance with state law.

IMO and IANAL
You are in Texas and you carrying under your CHL is in accordance with state law. (Doesn't mean they wont fire you over it)
Either way, the statement really needs to be reworked, but I wouldn't ask them about it and give them the chance to tell you no.

b322da wrote:[
I may be wrong, but I suspect the OP doesn't want a lawsuit; he most likely just wants to keep his job.

Elmo

Which is why I said it wouldn't help much.

The ways it worded is too ambiguous and could be interpreted in a bad way. HR has a funny way of doing that from time to time. If someone complained to HR and brought up something about an unsafe work environment, intimidation, threats, etc and then you get a LEFT leaning individual who makes a case that there's nothing in the law that states you CANNOT be fired for carrying a loaded weapon at work. Whether its true or not doesn't matter, your still either out of a job or on the HR short list for early retirement.

I personally would not carry on the premises in this case.

Toadstone wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm okay to carry at work, but I want to run the wording of the company policy about weapons by you guys. Among the list of things that will get you immediately terminated is this:

"Possession of firearms, explosives, or any lethal weapon on company property, in accordance with state law"

The "in accordance with state law" part makes me think that it is okay since state law says I can legally carry. Oh, and the building is NOT 30.06 posted. Thanks in advance for your help.

I would not assume that you are OK to carry based on the policy statement. It is very ambiguous as some of the posts state. I would ask HR for an interpretation before I would even considered carrying. I would not ask if it was OK for me to carry because I have a CHL. I would say something like, "I was reviewing the company policy manual and came to this policy and cannot make sense of what it says." "If someone for example were to have a legal size pocket knife on company property, would that be cause for termination?" (Yes/No) "I know some people have licenses to carry firearms, concealed carry weapons permit I believe they are called, would someone like that be OK to have a gun on company property or not?" (Yes/No) "I am just trying to understand the policy because it is weird the way it is worded and I don't quite understand what it means, specially the "in accordance with state law" part"

Actually, I bet Bulldog is right. How many states do y'all have offices in? The more I think about this, the more that wording make sense with Bulldog's explanation...it's either that, or they took a "generic", "legal-zoom" type wording and plugged it in and never went back and fixed it, this explanation would work if it's a brand new co and very small.

I know my husband's company has offices in...3? maybe 4 states? the hq is in Maryland? I think? somewhere up there in yankee land! anyway most of his co-workers are in WA state, but some are in CA, and some, like him work in their home, where ever that is....TRY wording that office policy but hey, he can carry in his "office"

Toadstone wrote: "Possession of firearms, explosives, or any lethal weapon on company property, in accordance with state law"

Am I missing something here? It looks like a single sentence out of a company handbook and not the entire policy regarding weapons.
How could anyone form a decision off of that alone?

Bulldog1911 wrote:Is it possible that the HQ is in another state, and that they wrote their policy according to that state's laws? To me it sounds as though the state they are in prohibits any type of weapon. Maybe Illinois?

It's a good possibility. The company I work for is based out of California. Our workplace firearm policy is the "Unlicensed possession of a firearm...." type. In CA that's not really so much of an issue. But we also have offices in Austin and retail stores across the country. Since I have a CHL, I can, per said company policy, waltz right in and carry away.

Of course, I work from home in Dallas, so I don't really care one way or other.

bkj wrote:GOVERNMENT CODE
PC §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;

You are carrying under Chapter 411 Subchapter H

GC CH. 411. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE STATE
OF TEXAS
Subch. H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN
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.

Subchapter H does not apply to your employer, so 30.06 does not apply to your employer. So you are under 30.05

I am not sure I am understanding what youa re saying or how it is meant to apply.

I agree that the OP is carrying under the authority of their CHL. I don't know how you can say that subchapter H does not apply to their employer though, since it applies to all employers in Texas other than the federal government. That is what the phrase public or private employer means. The government at any level is a public employer. All businesses or people that are not part of the government are private employers.

But regardless of who the employer is, 30.06 would also apply since it does not mention employers at all. Anyone can post a 30.06 sign and have it be enforceable if they are not on property owned or leased by a governmental entity.

Given that, I am not sure what your conclusion meant. I think we are in agreement that the OP can carry legally but can be fired for it if the company decides to. It is not going to be automatic since the wording of their policy is unclear, but it could happen since we are an at will state.

Wow, thanks for all the replies. The company is nation-wide and has offices in every state. The headquarters is in NY.