No gun company policy and 30.06 sign

[MegaWatt]

If the company you work for has a "no guns inside" policy for employees but the premises is basically open to the public, are they still required to put up a 30.06 sign to make that policy "legal"? I'm not talking about a convenient store or gas station but an office type building. I know Texas is a right to work state and your boss can basically let you go for little reason but without a proper sign someone may have a good argument.

[Wildscar]

Short answer is no they dont. Its a policy that mandated by the Company you work for. The general public may be able to carry in your place of business but you will not be able to. You can carry but if you are found out you will likly be terminated.

[seamusTX]

When this topic has been discussed in the past in this forum, the consensus was that any oral (spoken) warning was sufficient to make you liable to 30.06 prosecution, and written notice had to conform to 30.06. It doesn't need to be a sign. It could be the company policy manual or a web site.

The company that I work for has orientation where someone talks through the policy manual, and I specifically recall them mentioning the no weapons policy, although the written policy does not conform to 30.06.

In any case, they're unlikely to prosecute you if you're caught. Few companies want the publicity. They're more likely to persuade you to quit.

- jim

[TC-TX]

When this topic has been discussed in the past in this forum, the consensus was that any oral (spoken) warning was sufficient to make you liable to 30.06 prosecution, and written notice had to conform to 30.06. It doesn't need to be a sign. It could be the company policy manual or a web site.

The company that I work for has orientation where someone talks through the policy manual, and I specifically recall them mentioning the no weapons policy, although the written policy does not conform to 30.06.

In any case, they're unlikely to prosecute you if you're caught. Few companies want the publicity. They're more likely to persuade you to quit.

- jim

Written notification - in an Employer/Employee relationship does NOT have to comply with PC 30.06 requirements for either Printed or Posted notification.

No special Words, No special requirements. ANYTHING GOES.

[seamusTX]

I don't see an exception for employers here:

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:...
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

- Jim

[Nazrat]

It is not a penal code issue IMO. It is a question of contract between the employer and the employee. You can be terminated for violating the employee handbook regardless of the 30.06 language.

Those are two very different processes to get to the same result. You can't carry there if you receive legal notice in accordance with the code and you can't carry there if your contract with the employer states that you are prohibited from carrying.

[Dan20703]

My understanding is that not complying with the 30.06 posted areas would be breaking the law and you would be subject to arrest.

Breaking a company policy, by an employee, would not get you arrested, just fired. The general public (non-employees) could carry concealed without fear of being arrested unless they were asked to leave and then didn't comply.

[barres]

When this topic has been discussed in the past in this forum, the consensus was that any oral (spoken) warning was sufficient to make you liable to 30.06 prosecution, and written notice had to conform to 30.06. It doesn't need to be a sign. It could be the company policy manual or a web site.

The company that I work for has orientation where someone talks through the policy manual, and I specifically recall them mentioning the no weapons policy, although the written policy does not conform to 30.06.

In any case, they're unlikely to prosecute you if you're caught. Few companies want the publicity. They're more likely to persuade you to quit.

- jim

Written notification - in an Employer/Employee relationship does NOT have to comply with PC 30.06 requirements for either Printed or Posted notification.

No special Words, No special requirements. ANYTHING GOES.

Only in terms of whether or not you could/would be fired. Written notification must meet PC30.06 requirements for prosecution.

[Liberty]

When this topic has been discussed in the past in this forum, the consensus was that any oral (spoken) warning was sufficient to make you liable to 30.06 prosecution, and written notice had to conform to 30.06. It doesn't need to be a sign. It could be the company policy manual or a web site.

The company that I work for has orientation where someone talks through the policy manual, and I specifically recall them mentioning the no weapons policy, although the written policy does not conform to 30.06.

In any case, they're unlikely to prosecute you if you're caught. Few companies want the publicity. They're more likely to persuade you to quit.

- jim

Written notification - in an Employer/Employee relationship does NOT have to comply with PC 30.06 requirements for either Printed or Posted notification.

No special Words, No special requirements. ANYTHING GOES.

Only in terms of whether or not you could/would be fired. Written notification must meet PC30.06 requirements for prosecution.

[MegaWatt]

In my arguments with our HR manager I said without the 30.06 sign, any non-employee with a CHL can legally come inside while carrying but the employees can't. I also brought up that we would be just like Virginia Tech if some crazy scumbag comes in with a gun, nobody inside would be able to defend ourselves. To give our HR manager credit, she did say she's considering dropping that clause.

[frankie_the_yankee]

In my arguments with our HR manager I said without the 30.06 sign, any non-employee with a CHL can legally come inside while carrying but the employees can't. I also brought up that we would be just like Virginia Tech if some crazy scumbag comes in with a gun, nobody inside would be able to defend ourselves. To give our HR manager credit, she did say she's considering dropping that clause.

I'll give you credit for getting this far.

What I will never understand is why so many people seem to have trouble with the idea that an employer-mandated "no guns" policy HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PENAL CODE OR WITH ANYONE'S "RIGHTS". If the employer says "wear red pants" you wear red pants if you want to work there.

They are not going to have you arrested if you don't wear red pants. They will simply fire you.

Likewise with "no guns" policies. If not posted, you commit no crime by carrying a gun. You are just BREAKING THE RULES and can expect to be fired if found out.

[RPBrown]

As with a lot of companies, insurance requires them to have it in the manuel. To get around the insurance requirements, some companies have it stated "without written permission" as mine does. Then you ask for written permission.

Others are just sheeple or totally anti's

[Xander]

What I will never understand is why so many people seem to have trouble with the idea that an employer-mandated "no guns" policy HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PENAL CODE OR WITH ANYONE'S "RIGHTS". If the employer says "wear red pants" you wear red pants if you want to work there.

They are not going to have you arrested if you don't wear red pants. They will simply fire you.

Likewise with "no guns" policies. If not posted, you commit no crime by carrying a gun. You are just BREAKING THE RULES and can expect to be fired if found out.

As pointed out above though, that's not entirely true, in the sense that there does not necessarily need to be a §30.06 compliant sign in order for you to be in violation of §30.06.

As I read it, if the employee handbook, or a handout received, say, in employee orientation contains the language specified by §30.06(c)(3)(A), you would be breaking the law by carrying a handgun at work, and you could be arrested and charged with criminal trespass by a license holder. Likewise if you are specifically verbally informed in an employee orientation that carrying handguns is prohibited, you would be violating §30.06 and subject to arrest and prosecution.

So, while a generic written "no guns" policy isn't legally enforceable, there are options other than a §30.06 sign that can put you squarely on the wrong side of the law.

[frankie_the_yankee]

As I read it, if the employee handbook, or a handout received, say, in employee orientation contains the language specified by §30.06(c)(3)(A), you would be breaking the law by carrying a handgun at work, and you could be arrested and charged with criminal trespass by a license holder.

I don't read it that way at all.

The law specifies what SIGNS must look like, including being bilingual, of a certain size, etc. It says nothing about generic written notices that I know of.

Likewise if you are specifically verbally informed in an employee orientation that carrying handguns is prohibited, you would be violating §30.06 and subject to arrest and prosecution.

Possibly. But they would have to PROVE that they so informed you. Just saying that they did it would not be enough. For example, just what did they say, EXACTLY?

Finally, if anyone has ever been prosecuted in TX under these circumstances I would like to know about it.

[Mithras61]

As I read it, if the employee handbook, or a handout received, say, in employee orientation contains the language specified by §30.06(c)(3)(A), you would be breaking the law by carrying a handgun at work, and you could be arrested and charged with criminal trespass by a license holder.

I don't read it that way at all.

The law specifies what SIGNS must look like, including being bilingual, of a certain size, etc. It says nothing about generic written notices that I know of.

Actually, it does specify what the content of written notice must be:

Sec. 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 Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.