Concealed carry at work

[boomerang]

It's right there in 30.06 in black and white.

They can still fire you for carrying in violation of policy but they can also fire you because they don't like your haircut.

[Keith B]

In the CHL class I took this last Saturday, the instructor told us that an employer can give notice to the employee either verbally or written into the policy manual, and that it does not have to comply with 30.06 to be legal notice. There was also a question on the DPS CHL test to this effect.

Most folks here are advising, and it was my own belief, that if the written notice in the policy manual was not in the 30.06 language it was not legal notice under 30.06. Does anyone know what the actual law is on this?

If the written language in the employee manual is not exactly 30.06, then it is not legally binding for arrest. Verbal notification IS equivalent to 30.06. Disclaimer, IANAL

[USCGELECTROTECH]

What do you think about this one. Pretty iron clad? I keep it in my truck while at work but is that ok?


FIREARMS & WEAPONS
The possession of firearms and/or weapons on Company premises and property or when acting as an agent while conducting Company business is prohibited, regardless of having a permit with the exception of the security officers. Violations of this policy will result in disciplinary action, up to and including immediate termination.

[boomerang]

If your truck is parked at work they can fire you.

[USCGELECTROTECH]

That's what I was afraid of. I will continue to keep my head down.

[A-R]

FIREARMS & WEAPONS
The possession of firearms and/or weapons on Company premises and property or when acting as an agent while conducting Company business is prohibited, regardless of having a permit with the exception of the security officers. Violations of this policy will result in disciplinary action, up to and including immediate termination.

This is one of those issues that really gets under my skin. Ties in with campus carry and "gun free zones". I understand the supposed "logic" and legal cover that is going on with these decisions. These large entities are scared that they could be held legally liable if someone shoots someone else on their property, especially if that someone works for them. But there is another side to the legal liability, IMHO. And I'm afraid it is going to require a tragedy, and a lawsuit filed by a survivor against a company or university, for these giant entities to understand the error of their ways.

IANAL, but I'd love for some of the lawyers among us to chime in on this. I worked a long time in the newspaper business and once wrote an article while in college about a lawsuit filed against the school on the basis of "premises liability". The main point of the lawsuit involved a woman who'd been sexually assaulted in her dorm room. The assailant had gained entry to the dorm through a back door that had been either broken or propped open (don't remember exact details). The lawsuit claimed the university had been deficient in providing to this woman a customary/rudimentary level of expected safety inside this dorm because of negligence in maintaining and/or monitoring the lock on this back door.

After I quit newspapers, I worked for five years in retail/commercial property management. The horror stories you hear in that business of someone simply slipping and falling on your property and suing a company are staggering.

So my question/scenario is this, why would this same legal liability not also apply to a company that willfully DISARMS its employee who is then injured or killed by an attacker who the employee may have been able to fend off if they had not been DISARMED by their company. This seems especially egregious in the above quoted case of "or when acting as an agent while conducting Company business ". I used to drive all over the state of Texas for a company. The entire time I was driving to and from different locations I was technically "acting as an agent" of the company. My company didn't have a policy written like above (and if they had I would have ignored it anyway, at risk to my job). But in the above sited case, what if an employee with CHL is assaulted while on "company business" and has no way to defend himself/herself. Isn't the company here LEGALLY LIABLE for denying the employee his/her choosen method of self defense?

I fear that this issue will only be resolved if a CHL holder is KILLED while "on the job" and DISARMED by such a ridiculous company policy.

[Oldskoolfan]

Simply because you choose to work there. I am willing to bet that you recieve a copy of the rules and policies of your employer upon employment. And you are often asked to sign a document stating that you agree to those rules and understand them as well. If you do not, well you are more then you are more than welcome to work somewhere else. And they have to provide you with a reasonable degree of protection. A gunman coming in is something that they cannot possibly prevent.

[Fourman]

What do you think about this one. Pretty iron clad? I keep it in my truck while at work but is that ok?


FIREARMS & WEAPONS
The possession of firearms and/or weapons on Company premises and property or when acting as an agent while conducting Company business is prohibited, regardless of having a permit with the exception of the security officers. Violations of this policy will result in disciplinary action, up to and including immediate termination.

I am a security officer at my house does that count?

I rather be alive with no job then dead with a job.....

[Bart]

A gunman coming in is something that they cannot possibly prevent.

If they have a policy they're responsible for the consequences of their selective enforcement.

[A-R]

A gunman coming in is something that they cannot possibly prevent.

Yes they CAN prevent it. Either allow me the God-given right to defend myself, or hire for me (and anyone else who requests it) a private armed bodyguard while I am on their premises. If every lazy person in the building gets a free "ergonomic" desk chair to protect their precious back muscles, then I want an armed bodyguard to protect my back muscles.

Of course, they are running a business, and just allowing me to carry my pistol with as I do everywhere else would be the less expensive or "budget neutral" solution.

[USA1]

i guess im lucky im self employed. however, since im on the road alot (houston), i work and drive in some very undesirable areas. places you hear about on the news. i carry in my truck under the "motorist protection act", it sure gives me a little piece of mind knowing im not totally defenseless .

[Edro20]

I guess that I am very fortunate. I have permission to have any gun I deem necessary for my safety on my person at any time while in the office. I don't do this yet since I don't have the CHL yet, but I do carry in the car at all times.