TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

Keith B wrote:

C-dub wrote:It was the next part that I thought would cover those carrying under the MPA.

Sec.A52.061.AARESTRICTION 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.

Is this not the case?

Sorry C-dub, this is correct. I see you quoted canvasback in the previous post. His post deals with general employers, and they can't prohibit those carrying under MPA. I thought we were still talking about the petrochemical plant, and you must be a CHL to be exempt there.

Nope. My bad. We quoted different sections of the same law. I see the section you quoted now. That's strange that there is that difference.

Actually the policy that I was having to develop is for a petrochemical plant. So, the unlicensed possession can be prohibited even in the parking lot by the company.

steveincowtown wrote:

Stormwatcher wrote:

paulhailes wrote:Based on the attitude of your HR department I think it would be hard not to worry, but then again how would they know? Do they search cars often? If not then keep it concealed and keep your mouth shut.

Exactly Paul! It's hard not to worry about it! If I got fired.... I feel I would eventually win..... Maybe. But at what cost? My kids are entering college now and I need my job more than ever now!' I don't mean to sound ungrateful for all the hard work that went into getting this bill passed, but the reality is..... If big companies are taking this attitude..... I suspect little guys like myself would not fair well in the litigation, due to all the political dollars lining politician's pockets.

If this true..... What good did the bill do, if Large Companies choose to ignore it.

And No! I have been at my company almost 25 years and to my knowledge... they have never searched vehicles at our facility. Other facilities, but never mine.

The fact that my large global company chooses to ignore the law tells me they know something I don't. Most working class people can't afford to loose their job. If we can still loose our jobs .... What did SB321 do for us?

Alot for those who just choose to abide within it and not rock the boat.

Not to be rude, but I cannot think a one possible upside to talking to your boss about having a weapon in your car or having your CHL (especially at a big corporation) The law is what it is, and seems fairly clear.

I work at a company where I know the owner is 100% pro gun, is a staunch NRA supporter, talks about how he needs to get his CHL, talks about what a great program TX has for CHL'ers, and I have not, and will not ever tell him I carry. I just don't see the upside.

I respectfully disagree.....responsible gun owners should not hide the fact that people who are not viewed as gun nuts also own and carry firearms. It's time to take the issue out of the closet. We will never win over the folks who are not opposed to guns per se but are largly uneducated on how an armed populous is actually safer than disarmament. The other side is doing a good job of selling gun control with emotional arguements while the side that has facts on their side is remaining silent.

Stormwatcher wrote:

paulhailes wrote:Based on the attitude of your HR department I think it would be hard not to worry, but then again how would they know? Do they search cars often? If not then keep it concealed and keep your mouth shut.

Exactly Paul! It's hard not to worry about it! If I got fired.... I feel I would eventually win..... Maybe. But at what cost? My kids are entering college now and I need my job more than ever now!' I don't mean to sound ungrateful for all the hard work that went into getting this bill passed, but the reality is..... If big companies are taking this attitude..... I suspect little guys like myself would not fair well in the litigation, due to all the political dollars lining politician's pockets.

If this true..... What good did the bill do, if Large Companies choose to ignore it.

And No! I have been at my company almost 25 years and to my knowledge... they have never searched vehicles at our facility. Other facilities, but never mine.

The fact that my large global company chooses to ignore the law tells me they know something I don't. Most working class people can't afford to loose their job. If we can still loose our jobs .... What did SB321 do for us?

Actually they did not ignore it. They added the clause about "if our policy is in conflict with local laws..... The law would take precedence". We discussed adding essentially the same language to our companies' policy (I am the person who was responsible for re-writing our facility firearms policy, we are also a large global petrochemical company). The thinking behind this clause was for the company to still be able to send the message of "we don't want guns here" but allow them wherever the law forces the company too. The clause would also allow us the chance to not change our policy everytime that the law is changed in future sessions. We ultimately spelled out where no one including CHL holders could carry and then added the standard "unlicensed possession is prohibited even in parking lots".

Our company recognizes that we can not bar employees who are CHL holders from possessing weapons outside of the secure area. I'm pretty sure that if you asked our HR manager the same question as you did yours, you would still get the response of "our policy remains no weapons on the property" but they are fully aware that they can do nothing about it if you do bring one on in accordance with the law.

Most companies want to portray the message that they do not want guns on their property. Be glad that your company chose this approach as opposed to many companies that are requiring employees to fill out firearms declaration forms.

FWIW, it was quite a difficult situation to be a CHL holder who believes in constitutional carry, but I must represent the wishes of my company when writing policy.