TexasCHLforum.com

My apologies if this has been asked and answered, but if it has, I've missed it.

My employer has a weapons prohibited policy. What I would like to know is if I can legally carry and leave the gun in my vehicle (which is locked in the lot while I'm at work, and I've got to pass through security...with metal detectors...to start getting paid.)

The handbook says, "No firearms or weapons are permitted on Company property, in Company vehicles, or in Corporate buildings unless authorized by Corporate Security. Where federal, state or local laws impose different or additional requirements, the Company will abide by governing law."

Don't know if it matters or not, but our employee parking area is not gated. Security patrols it, but it is open access, and is in fact shared with customer parking. We're notified that our vehicles are subject to random search, but I've not known it to happen.

So...can I protect myself on my way to and from work and figure on keeping my job?

Thanks for your advice and assistance.

It sounds like you're out of luck, unless Texas passes a parking lot bill for CHL holders. An attempt to get one passed died in this past legislative session. Oh well... there's always 2011.


Employment is "at will" in Texas, and unless such a bill gets passed, and employer has the right to bar employees from having guns stored in their vehicles on company property. It doesn't matter if your company's customers also use this lot. The lone exception would be if the lot were shared with other businesses. For instance, if you work at a supermarket where other stores also use the same parking lot, then your employer could not bar you from storing a weapon in your car on that lot, since it is not exclusively company property.

The answer is as follows:

Is it illegal? No. You will not get arrested for it, even if they do search your car and find it.

Can you get fired for it? Yes.

Your choice as to what to do.

You're in the same situation I'm in. Sorry.

Chubbing bites!

No firearms or weapons are permitted on Company property, in Company vehicles, or in Corporate buildings unless authorized by Corporate Security.

What about going in and talking to Corporate Security and telling them that you'd like to be able to defend yourself, if the situation ever arose, while traveling to and from work, by carrying a gun in your car as authorized by the MPA, and what are their thoughts on that? And say nothing more until you can see what type of response you will get. If it's anything but a strong negative then ask them to give you permission to do just that.

By the careful wording of what you quoted, it is another way of saying 'ask us, and we'll let you know'. Which is not a definitive "no guns in the car under any circumstances" ruling.

Just my opinion.

There's a risk to asking management or corporate security. If they say no, you just got verbal notice. Now you can be prosecuted in addition to being fired.

roberts wrote:There's a risk to asking management or corporate security. If they say no, you just got verbal notice. Now you can be prosecuted in addition to being fired.

There is no such stipulation to the MPA. CHL sure, but if he's keeping it in his car, and not carrying it, thats MPA Territory. Hence, not prosecutable.

dicion wrote:

roberts wrote:There's a risk to asking management or corporate security. If they say no, you just got verbal notice. Now you can be prosecuted in addition to being fired.

There is no such stipulation to the MPA. CHL sure, but if he's keeping it in his car, and not carrying it, thats MPA Territory. Hence, not prosecutable.

If he doesn't have a CHL then he doesn't get the 30.05(f) defense. Pick your poison.

joe817 wrote:...
What about going in and talking to Corporate Security and telling them ...

Just my opinion.

You are thinking like a reasonable man, not Corporate Security. If he did this, he just identified himself as a man who carries a gun, which is to say, a threat or a potential threat, from their (and their insurer's) perspective. If they didn't just let him go immediately, if only on another pretext, I am sure the corporate "we can search your car" policy would be quickly and regularly enforced.

I am afraid that single person efforts to change a corporate policies like this (including non-compliant gun-buster signs) just result in either identifying oneself as a "problem" or chinks in the policy that can be quickly "remedied." Occasionally someone finds a reasonable person in the management who can actually change the policy, but I fear those are few and far between.

As others have said, until next Session when hopefully our "servants" in Austin will pass the bill...

NO, you can not be arrested for carrying if they search your car.

YES, you can be fired for having it in their car if they search and find it if their employment policy prohibits it. They set the conditions of employment.

You could park in the street or park in a public lot, if there is one available.

We need the parking lot bill. I'm in the same boat. The first thing I do when I get home from work is arm myself. It is generally the only place I go "empty holstered".

Thanks.

I had reached those same conclusions myself, but hoped there was an option I'd missed. We have no other businesses nearby, so I can't even do a park and walk or park and ride.

Also thought about talking to security, but since they just did a push last month to remind us about the policy, I figure the timing is probably bad. Not to mention that we've got some folks in security who thing they're guarding the US Treasury or something.

I reckon I'll bide my time.

Don't ask - don't tell.

In the CHL handbook GC411.203 reads "Rights of Employers. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business" The definition of Premises is given in PC 46.035(f) and is not a subset under any portion of 46.035, but merely a definition for all of "Unlawful carrying of a handgun by license holder".

In GC 411.171. Definitions, it gives reference to PC 46.01 and 49.01 for definitions of "Handgun" and "Intoxicated" respectively. Does this not give precedence to also allowing definitions for other GC Items from the Penal Code.

Can someone please shed some light on why PC46.035 definition of Premises would not apply here as well. It makes no sense to me that Premises can be defined in two different manners.

ELB wrote:

joe817 wrote:...
What about going in and talking to Corporate Security and telling them ...

Just my opinion.

You are thinking like a reasonable man, not Corporate Security. If he did this, he just identified himself as a man who carries a gun, which is to say, a threat or a potential threat, from their (and their insurer's) perspective. If they didn't just let him go immediately, if only on another pretext, I am sure the corporate "we can search your car" policy would be quickly and regularly enforced.

I am afraid that single person efforts to change a corporate policies like this (including non-compliant gun-buster signs) just result in either identifying oneself as a "problem" or chinks in the policy that can be quickly "remedied." Occasionally someone finds a reasonable person in the management who can actually change the policy, but I fear those are few and far between.

I tend to agree. My guess is that they would ask to immediately escort you to to your car and conduct one of the searches that you thought had never been previously conducted.

I would not bring up the subject.