TexasCHLforum.com

canvasbck wrote:

AEA wrote:Discreetly inform your employer he should READ the STATE LAWS before implementing "Policy" that is illegal.

Specifically the part where you are only REQUIRED to provide your License to LEO's when asked for identification.

I haven't noticed the word only in the statute. I don't believe that there are any statutes forbidding an employer making it a condition of employment. I know there is a confidentiality portion of the CHL statutes that prevents the government from disclosing your CHL information except in certain circumstances, but I haven't seen anywhere that private companies cannot request that information.

GC §411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. A person who fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by this subsection is subject to suspension of the person's license as provided by Section 411.187.

So...The law does not prohibit anyone asking if you have a CHL, but does limit the people you actually have to disclose that information to peace officers and judges.

I personally wouldn't say anything.

unhappycamper wrote:Companies can't discriminate against disabled people but they're allowed to ask so they can make accommodations.

They are not allowed to ask if an employee has a disability.

“An employer may not ask or require a job applicant to take a medical examination before making a job offer. It cannot make any pre-employment inquiry about a disability or the nature or severity of a disability. In other words if a prospective employee walks with a limp, the prospective employer cannot ask if the prospective employee has a disability. They can only ask if he/she is physically able to do the job.

” http://www.ada.gov/q&aeng02.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A company is only required to make an accommodation if the employee makes the request.

I'm surprised no one has said this already. Consult a lawyer. Period.

Why does it seem that some folks are more on the side of the companies who wish to restrict rights than the side of the citizens who's rights are being restricted?

Here's why I said you should consult a lawyer. Your employer cannot prohibit you from having a weapon and/or ammunition in your car if you are legally authorized to do so.

SUBCHAPTER G. RESTRICTIONS ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE
TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF CERTAIN FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION
Sec. 52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO
OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer
may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully
possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or
ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked,
privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or
other parking area the employer provides for employees.

However, the law does NOT say that the employer can't ask you about it. It merely says your employer does not have a duty to do so.

(c) For purposes of this section, a public or private
employer, or the employer's principal, officer, director,
employee, or agent, does not have a duty:
(1) to patrol, inspect, or secure:
(A) any parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area the employer provides for employees; or
(B) any privately owned motor vehicle located in
a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area described by
Paragraph (A); or
(2) to investigate, confirm, or determine an
employee's compliance with laws related to the ownership or
possession of a firearm or ammunition or the transportation and
storage of a firearm or ammunition.

So, can your employer legally ask you to prove that you are authorized to have weapons and/or ammunition in your possession in your car? I don't know. A lawyer is required to know.

VoiceofReason wrote:

unhappycamper wrote:Companies can't discriminate against disabled people but they're allowed to ask so they can make accommodations.

They are not allowed to ask if an employee has a disability.

Wow! You mean every job application I did the company was breaking the law with their EEOC form?

Heartland Patriot wrote:Why does it seem that some folks are more on the side of the companies who wish to restrict rights than the side of the citizens who's rights are being restricted?

I hear that a lot from people who object to drug testing.

You don't need a CHL to have weapon in your car. From what I've read the employee parking lot law has nothing to do with a CHL requirement.

SB 321 applies to both public and private employers, as well as all lawfully-owned firearms - not just firearms in the possession of Concealed Handgun Licensees.

wrinkles wrote:You don't need a CHL to have weapon in your car. From what I've read the employee parking lot law has nothing to do with a CHL requirement.

SB 321 applies to both public and private employers, as well as all lawfully-owned firearms - not just firearms in the possession of Concealed Handgun Licensees.

This is true and now that you mention it they should not have said anything about CHLees in the law. It should have only said that employers were not allowed to have a policy against or terminate any employee for having a weapon in their vehicle.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Why does it seem that some folks are more on the side of the companies who wish to restrict rights than the side of the citizens who's rights are being restricted?

I am sure that some of my posts come across that way, but I can assure you that I am not on the company's side of this one. I am just pointing out that the laws as currently written give the employer the power to make excercising those rights extremely difficult. I want to make sure that folks understand that if they choose to ignore a company's demand to provide the CHL information prior to bringing a firearm on site, that the law is not clearly on the employee's side of this one.

Look back at some of my other posts concerning the implementation of SB321 and you will see that I was involved in preventing the company that I work for from implementing some of the same nonsense.

BTW, to those of you who keep talking about carrying under MPA, the OP (I believe) was referring to a refinery/chemical plant where MPA doesn't allow an employee to store in their vehicle on the property. Only CHL's at those locations.

canvasbck wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:Why does it seem that some folks are more on the side of the companies who wish to restrict rights than the side of the citizens who's rights are being restricted?

I am sure that some of my posts come across that way, but I can assure you that I am not on the company's side of this one. I am just pointing out that the laws as currently written give the employer the power to make excercising those rights extremely difficult. I want to make sure that folks understand that if they choose to ignore a company's demand to provide the CHL information prior to bringing a firearm on site, that the law is not clearly on the employee's side of this one.

Look back at some of my other posts concerning the implementation of SB321 and you will see that I was involved in preventing the company that I work for from implementing some of the same nonsense.

BTW, to those of you who keep talking about carrying under MPA, the OP (I believe) was referring to a refinery/chemical plant where MPA doesn't allow an employee to store in their vehicle on the property. Only CHL's at those locations.

I can attest to the fact that canvasbck is on our side. As noted, you have to present the facts whether you like them or not.

I personally wouldn't declare it. While maybe not against any law for them to ASK, I'm sure as heck not breaking any law by not providing them my CHL. However, being an at-will state, they could find any reason to fire you. The only thing that makes me nervous about having a firearm in my car at work is the possibility of random firearm searches by a dog. Have I seen it happen? No. Would I be surprised if it did? No.

I think I would have to insist that they keep a copy of the driver's license of every employee that parks in the company lot and see how far that gets them.

gigag04 wrote:

canvasbck wrote:

AEA wrote:Discreetly inform your employer he should READ the STATE LAWS before implementing "Policy" that is illegal.

Specifically the part where you are only REQUIRED to provide your License to LEO's when asked for identification.

I haven't noticed the word only in the statute. I don't believe that there are any statutes forbidding an employer making it a condition of employment. I know there is a confidentiality portion of the CHL statutes that prevents the government from disclosing your CHL information except in certain circumstances, but I haven't seen anywhere that private companies cannot request that information.

GC §411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. A person who fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by this subsection is subject to suspension of the person's license as provided by Section 411.187.

So...The law does not prohibit anyone asking if you have a CHL, but does limit the people you actually have to disclose that information to peace officers and judges.

I personally wouldn't say anything.

...you're quoting the old law...411.205 doesn't say that anymore...check out a LS16 of Oct 2009...


...it galls me that we have a law carefully written and passed, yet an employer who cares not a whit about the safety of it's employees, only their financial liability...and circumvents that law...but that's the way it works....

jimlongley wrote:I think I would have to insist that they keep a copy of the driver's license of every employee that parks in the company lot and see how far that gets them.

Unless you're upper management, good luck "insisting" they do what you want.