Concealed carry in a state agency

[Purplehood]

You work for the State. They shouldn't be using policy/regulations to take your rights away from you unless there is some overriding concern.

I understand that they "shouldn't". But it is a fact - at least as far as my agency is concerned - that they DO. The discussion is what can or should be done to correct it.

Frankly, if what I suspect and posted above is true, I'm a bit disappointed that Perry hasn't already taken care of this by Executive Order.

AustinMRH, I understand your concerns about bringing the issue up to HR. Even though our management insists that there are confidentiality protections for these sorts of inquiries, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. In our case, it is clearly spelled out in the HR manual. If your manual is silent as to this, I would assume that it is allowed unless you are expressly told otherwise, in writing. Or at least I would assume it would be a defense against being fired if you were caught (but IANAL).

Whether you are in state owned or state leased space should not matter, but again, IANAL.

I must be a jerk. I have worked for the Military, the Civil Service and the Postal Service. I personally would fight things using the chain of command (or whatever civilian bureaucracies call it). Why? Because I know that if the law IS indeed on my side, then I have a better chance of winning than I would ever dream of if I worked for a private employer.
The more I read this forum the more I think that even a private employer should not have the "right" to deny my rights. Private property my butt. If I were to start screaming about 1st Amendment rights being violated I am sure I would get some mileage with a private employer. So why aren't my 2nd Amendment rights just as valid? Unfortunately we all know the answer to that one.
I am not trying to say you (the OP) are wrong, nor am I trying to push you to do something that you may have too much common-sense to do (challenge your state agency); in reality I am just ranting that a state agency should not be able to interpret and ignore state law as they choose.

[mec]

The Protective and Regulatory Services agency has an anti-gun/anti-weapon statement in their employee's handbook. There is also a clause that seems to say that policy questions are not set in concrete but are at the discression of the agency. I worked for that agency until retirement and was careful to maintain concealment and fortunate not to have to use the weapon for self protection. Some of the more boarderline of the employess would cry out if an armed security guard entered the premises so, the security guards functioned as receptionists handing out visitor's IDs are alternately sleeping at their desks.
Licensed carry by non employees is protected by law.

[OldCannon]

The more I read this forum the more I think that even a private employer should not have the "right" to deny my rights. Private property my butt. If I were to start screaming about 1st Amendment rights being violated I am sure I would get some mileage with a private employer. So why aren't my 2nd Amendment rights just as valid? Unfortunately we all know the answer to that one.

Um, no, you wouldn't.

If you are an at-will employee, you are bound by the policies set forth by the company, whether you like them or not. If they require you wear purple pants on Wednesday, but you have religious objections to it, you're welcome to leave the company. While it's true that there are "protected" accommodations (ADA, Civil Rights Act, etc.), don't make the mistake of thinking the bill of rights trumps your conditions of employment, especially at-will employment. This is precisely why we have federal and state laws that help extend those rights into the workplace. Conversely, as a private employer, I may find it frustrating that such laws would thwart my ability to create a working environment that met my standards of "safe." As a small business owner, I might also be frustrated because it's possible that my liability insurance rates will jump once I'm forced to accommodate concealed carry employees, especially if my insurer declares my work environment to be high-stress/high-risk.

Getting legislative concessions to allow employees to carry within their "property zones" (i.e., in your car from work to home) shouldn't be a difficult case to make. Requiring businesses to permit employee CC inside the workplace seems (to me) to be an impossible hurdle to broadly enforce.

[Dave2]

As a small business owner, I might also be frustrated because it's possible that my liability insurance rates will jump once I'm forced to accommodate concealed carry employees, especially if my insurer declares my work environment to be high-stress/high-risk.

I suspect this is the reason a lot of employers ban weapons. To me, the obvious solution is to move liability for actions an employee takes at work that aren't work-related from the employer to the employee (which is where they should be anyway).

[OldCannon]

As a small business owner, I might also be frustrated because it's possible that my liability insurance rates will jump once I'm forced to accommodate concealed carry employees, especially if my insurer declares my work environment to be high-stress/high-risk.

I suspect this is the reason a lot of employers ban weapons. To me, the obvious solution is to move liability for actions an employee takes at work that aren't work-related from the employer to the employee (which is where they should be anyway).

That seems difficult to enforce, and doesn't help much for places of businesses where customers may also be (legal conference rooms, stores, etc.). It gets very complicated because it's forcing a private business to do things that they may find repugnant or even religiously objectionable.

Too often, when it comes to businesses, we tend to think of large, "faceless" corporations, but most businesses are very small, and we must try to be understanding of how they want to conduct their business in the same way that we would be understanding of somebody that wouldn't want guns in their home. We may disagree with their principles, but to force them to submit to your will, even by rule of law, makes me extremely uncomfortable.

[Dave2]

As a small business owner, I might also be frustrated because it's possible that my liability insurance rates will jump once I'm forced to accommodate concealed carry employees, especially if my insurer declares my work environment to be high-stress/high-risk.

I suspect this is the reason a lot of employers ban weapons. To me, the obvious solution is to move liability for actions an employee takes at work that aren't work-related from the employer to the employee (which is where they should be anyway).

That seems difficult to enforce, and doesn't help much for places of businesses where customers may also be (legal conference rooms, stores, etc.). It gets very complicated because it's forcing a private business to do things that they may find repugnant or even religiously objectionable.

I think one of us might be misunderstanding the other. Let me clarify my position and let's see if we still disagree...

Let's say that you walk in to Best Buy, and you're doing your thing, and out of the blue one of their employees walks up and smacks you. As things are right now, Best Buy is liable for that action. In my world, it's the employee that's liable. Unless Best Buy has some "must randomly attack at least ten customers per week" policy, they had nothing to do with it. Why should Best Buy be held liable, and how is that "repugnant or even religiously objectionable"?

[rm9792]

So, state employees who work in the capitol can't use the CHL express lane?

Sure they can. They just can't be carrying.

If not carrying then back to the end of the line!

[OldCannon]

Let's say that you walk in to Best Buy, and you're doing your thing, and out of the blue one of their employees walks up and smacks you. As things are right now, Best Buy is liable for that action. In my world, it's the employee that's liable. Unless Best Buy has some "must randomly attack at least ten customers per week" policy, they had nothing to do with it. Why should Best Buy be held liable, and how is that "repugnant or even religiously objectionable"?

That seems like a red herring.

I'm saying that if I was a small business owner that was, say, a Quaker, being _required_ to allow my employees to carry concealed in the workplace would go against everything I stand for. Of course, one could smile at the delicious irony of forcing the Brady Campaign to permit CC in their workplace

[mgood]

Of course, one could smile at the delicious irony of forcing the Brady Campaign to permit CC in their workplace

[Dave2]

Let's say that you walk in to Best Buy, and you're doing your thing, and out of the blue one of their employees walks up and smacks you. As things are right now, Best Buy is liable for that action. In my world, it's the employee that's liable. Unless Best Buy has some "must randomly attack at least ten customers per week" policy, they had nothing to do with it. Why should Best Buy be held liable, and how is that "repugnant or even religiously objectionable"?

That seems like a red herring.

I'm saying that if I was a small business owner that was, say, a Quaker, being _required_ to allow my employees to carry concealed in the workplace would go against everything I stand for. Of course, one could smile at the delicious irony of forcing the Brady Campaign to permit CC in their workplace

It seems like a red herring, but that kind of thing happens. Sometimes companies are even held liable when the employee isn't on the clock or doing anything work-related! I'm not trying to force an employer to allow CC, I just want to remove a major reason for them to ban it. Plus, the liability laws are in this country anyway.

[srothstein]

The more I read this forum the more I think that even a private employer should not have the "right" to deny my rights. Private property my butt. If I were to start screaming about 1st Amendment rights being violated I am sure I would get some mileage with a private employer. So why aren't my 2nd Amendment rights just as valid?

There are two points you are missing. The first point is that all of your rights are guaranteed by the Constitution as freedom from Governmental interference. private individuals, not operating under the color of law (pretending their actions are authorized by law), may infringe your rights all they want. The most you might be able to get from them is a lawsuit for the tort IF you can prove damages and the harm happens to exist in the tort law (claims like infringing your rights do not, but maybe intentional infliction of emotional distress might cover it, as one example).

The second, and more important point, is that people get their first amendment rights restricted by their employers all the time and courts support it. Just look at all of the companies that have rules that forbid employees from talking to the press about the company business. And when one of these "unnamed sources" is discovered and fired, the courts back it up as legal termination for violation of company policy.

[AustinMRH]

There are two points you are missing. The first point is that all of your rights are guaranteed by the Constitution as freedom from Governmental interference. private individuals, not operating under the color of law (pretending their actions are authorized by law), may infringe your rights all they want.

But now what if you are working for the government. The same folks tasked with writing and enforcing the laws shouldn't then be allowed to interfere with the rights granted to me by those laws. It is not a private individual or even a faceless corporation that is infringing on the rights of those of us in this thread, rather it is an extension of the government. Is it simply the fact that they are not operating as though their rule is anything more than merely company policy, rather than edict, that puts them in the clear?

[srothstein]

Nope, Austin. I agree that the government is bound to obey and recognize your rights, even when you are an employee and it is work conditions. If anyone wanted to file a lawsuit against the government for telling their own employees they could not carry (even with a CHL), I would support the suit and hope it would win. I doubt it would, but I would do everything I could to help.

And to show how bad it can get, the state agency I work for won't allow anyone who is not a peace officer that they carry the commission on to carry a gun on duty. They ban it for CHL's and even if you are working for a different agency part time. Their official policy is just their peace officers can carry.

I think, in 20 years or so, that this will not be a problem. It will take about a dozen more lawsuits to nail it down, but now that SCOTUS has ruled on it being an individual right, and a fundamental right at that, gun bans will drop in the long run. I don't expect it sooner than that because I can see from history how long it took from Brown v. Board of Education to get integrated schools around the country. But we did get there eventually and we will with guns too.

[Scott Farkus]

I asked this a few posts up but I ask again - can't Perry simply order state agencies to allow their CHL holding employees to carry at work? Isn't this just a personnel policy issue that he as Executive has authority over?

I need to get that letter drafted. Now that the election's over he won't have any excuses.

[srothstein]

I asked this a few posts up but I ask again - can't Perry simply order state agencies to allow their CHL holding employees to carry at work? Isn't this just a personnel policy issue that he as Executive has authority over?

For some agencies, he can do this if he so desires. For others, he cannot. If the state agency is headed by another elected official, Perry has no control over it. This includes agencies like the Attorney General, Comptroller, and Agriculture Commission. For the agencies that are part of the executive branch, like DPS and TABC, he could do this.