Lawful to Carry at Work

[Braden]

I took my CHL renewal class yesterday and, if I understood him correctly, the instructor said something that I'm not sure is correct.

If I understood him correctly your employer can tell you verbally or in writing (such as in an employee handbook) that you cannot carry a firearm to work. In the past my understanding has always been that, while you stand the chance of losing your job, it was lawful to carry anyway unless you were given "effective notice" under 30.06.

Even though it is against company policy, I have carried to work in the past thinking that even though I was ignoring company policy it was still my legal right to carry. However, if my instructor was correct then ignoring such a policy from your company (which in my case is simply one hard to find line in our employee handbook) could not only get you fired but is unlawful and could result in you losing your license under 40.035 (Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon by License Holder).

Can someone with a better knowledge of the law please clarify this for me?

[Cosmo 9]

I believe verbal notice works the same as 30.06.

[Braden]

I would be inclined to agree with that because I believe 30.06 indicates that verbal notice is sufficient, but what if there is no verbal notice? In my case, it's a one liner in an employee handbook that was given to me years ago. There are also "no weapons" signs posted at the entrances but not the 30.06 sign.

Does a policy written in an employee handbook constitute effective notice under 30.06?

[nitrogen]

verbal notice is sufficient under the law.

If you have something in your employee handbook, that wording must be in the language of 30.06 for criminal tresspass charges to be levied against you.

Basically, as said before:
If your workplace gives you notice in a way that doesn't comply with 30.06, expect to be fired if caught, but don't expect criminal charges.

[cyphur]

I took my class on Saturday as well, and my instructor said the same thing. Any verbal warning counts, but written notices should comply with 30.06.

I work at an institution of higher education, so for right now, its pretty cut and dry to me. Lock it up and call it a day. Problem is - I use my personal vehicle for transpo right now and often park next to buildings on sidewalks and such. They can't search a locked area such as the glovebox, but I'd hate to lose my job b/c of an overzealous cop. Thankfully my job security is pretty good right now, but I don't want to push the envelope.

[KBCraig]

I took my class on Saturday as well, and my instructor said the same thing. Any verbal warning counts, but written notices should comply with 30.06.

That's correct. There is no minimum standard for verbal notice to be effective, but any written notice must comply with 30.06.

(Again, we're only talking about criminal sanctions here, not workplace fallout.)

I work at an institution of higher education, so for right now, its pretty cut and dry to me. Lock it up and call it a day. Problem is - I use my personal vehicle for transpo right now and often park next to buildings on sidewalks and such. They can't search a locked area such as the glovebox, but I'd hate to lose my job b/c of an overzealous cop.

It doesn't matter how zealous the cop is if you don't consent to the search. So don't!

Campus law enforcement, being bonafide TCLEOSE-carded LEOs, are bound by every restriction against unwarranted search that DPS or local LEOs are. They can't be simultaneously LEOs and security guards, and they can't perform unwarranted searches just because the university says so.

Kevin

[cyphur]

KB, I am not worried about an unlawful search, as the campus police are certified through the locality where the campus resides - I'd have recourses against that and the officer if that was the case(they hate lawsuits around here). However, I AM worried about fallout around here work-wise if I were to turn down a search request.

My job security is pretty good, as I said, but I'd rather not test how good.


Edited for typo

[KBCraig]

KB, I am not worried about an unlawful search, as the campus police are certified through the locality where the campus resides - I'd have recourses against that and the officer if that was the case(they hate lawsuits around here). However, I AM worried about fallout around here work-wise if I were to turn down a search request.

My job security is pretty good, as I said, but I'd rather not test how good.

Oh, I understood the focus of your worry. My point is, campus police are not going to undertake any searches that aren't legally justified, precisely because they're LEOs. Non-LEO security officers, though... that's a different story.

If faced with job fallout for refusing a search, or job fallout for having some prohibited object, I'd opt for refusing.

Kevin

[cyphur]

True. At least then I have a backdrop of an entire constitutional amendment, whereas found with a firearm, not much I can do.

[KD5NRH]

If faced with job fallout for refusing a search, or job fallout for having some prohibited object, I'd opt for refusing.

Agreed; last job I was at insisted on having a key to my locker, so I locked the bag I had everything in inside the locker. The bag and my car both contained undated resignation letters for use if anyone insisted on a search.

[stevie_d_64]

It doesn't matter how zealous the cop is if you don't consent to the search. So don't!

Campus law enforcement, being bonafide TCLEOSE-carded LEOs, are bound by every restriction against unwarranted search that DPS or local LEOs are. They can't be simultaneously LEOs and security guards, and they can't perform unwarranted searches just because the university says so.

Words to live another day too...

I'd put these away in the knowledge noggin', and always remember to state politely...

"Am I free to go sir?"

When replied to in the affirmative, then quietly, without any more to say or look at...

Leave...

I see most of these situations as a rarity...So having a good attitude, and doing your best to maintain it, is really a good thing...No that anyone here would need to work at that at all...

[racer32]

cyphur, the parking areas and sidewalks of schools are not "prohibited places" AFAIK. What's the harm in lock and leave other than your being unarmed when you're in the building?

[switch]

What's the employer policy?

I suspect it would be hard to prosecute someone for 'trespass' when you are paying him 30k to be there from 8 to 5.

I believe the sanction 'most' employers would apply would be termination. That's why DPS says an employer can put up any sign he wants, can put notices in the employee manual or verbal notice - because you can be terminated.

[Rugrash]

I noticed the other day (not on my first day at work) at the controlled entrance to our parking lot there is a 30.06 sign (correctly posted). The sign also had additional verbiage giving notice of possible vehicle/person search. The sign was brown with white lettering, so I never noticed it. The only reason I saw it was because I walked through the gate instead of driving thru it.

Rug

[1TallTXn]

I too work in Higher Ed. most of the time the gun stays in the car. If its not in the car, its at home.

I know I work in Higher Ed so its really a moot point, but my employee handbook doesn't say anything about weapons of any sort.