Keith B wrote:If it were my handbook, I would talk to HR and ask them for a clearer definition of the rule without disclosing you want to carry.
I wouldn't.
............as said previously...carry concealed and be quiet...........
Bringing it up for clarification will alert them to the fact you may be carrying and might lead to a change in the policy. Neither are good for you. Let sleeping dogs lie.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Informing them of this policy would lead to a change, but my HR lady is pretty cool so it might not.
Plus I'm more than likely not going to keep it on my person but rather in my bag.
DaMonsta wrote:This is exactly what I was thinking. Informing them of this policy would lead to a change, but my HR lady is pretty cool so it might not.
Plus I'm more than likely not going to keep it on my person but rather in my bag.
No matter what you think of the HR lady you should still play it smart and say nothing. It does no good sitting in your bag and it still could cause a problem if anyone else knew of it. Someone could take it and cause a problem because you were not in control of it. Loose lips sink ships
There will always be prayer in schools as long as there are tests.
"It's all about shot placement."- David (Slayer of Goliath)
Any legal types care to review the entry from my Employee handbook I posted? I interpret it loosely as "don't say anything and it is probably okay according to the laws and jurisdiction where I work", but knowing what I think I do about Texas law, the intent would be to give the employer the final say and does restrict carry.
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
Remember, if the prohibition is written (i.e. in a handbook), then it has to be 30.06-compliant to have the weight of law behind it. If it doesn't meet the standard of 30.06, you could potentially be fired but could not be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the prohibition is verbal, then the 30.06 standard does not apply - that is, any verbal prohibition is legally binding. That's why I advise against speaking to anyone about it. If you really want to ask HR about it, do so in an e-mail - that way it remains written and the 30.06 standard still applies.
TrueFlog wrote:Remember, if the prohibition is written (i.e. in a handbook), then it has to be 30.06-compliant to have the weight of law behind it. If it doesn't meet the standard of 30.06, you could potentially be fired but could not be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the prohibition is verbal, then the 30.06 standard does not apply - that is, any verbal prohibition is legally binding. That's why I advise against speaking to anyone about it. If you really want to ask HR about it, do so in an e-mail - that way it remains written and the 30.06 standard still applies.
All very good points.
Still, don't bring it up for discussion verbally or written!
You may cause a change that would affect another CHL holder in your work place. I'm sure they would be rather upset with you over it.
Don't open up that can of worms.
There will always be prayer in schools as long as there are tests.
"It's all about shot placement."- David (Slayer of Goliath)
TrueFlog wrote:Remember, if the prohibition is written (i.e. in a handbook), then it has to be 30.06-compliant to have the weight of law behind it. If it doesn't meet the standard of 30.06, you could potentially be fired but could not be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the prohibition is verbal, then the 30.06 standard does not apply - that is, any verbal prohibition is legally binding. That's why I advise against speaking to anyone about it. If you really want to ask HR about it, do so in an e-mail - that way it remains written and the 30.06 standard still applies.
All very good points.
Still, don't bring it up for discussion verbally or written!
You may cause a change that would affect another CHL holder in your work place. I'm sure they would be rather upset with you over it.
Don't open up that can of worms.
It's always easier for a bureaucrat to say "No." Wild Bill Dec 2009
I'll bet you $100 that the interpretation below is not the company's interpretation. If they had meant "unless authorized by law", they would have said just that. What their clause means is "not otherwise authorized by us". The employee handbook doesn't address law. It addresses company policy. Now, you can argue about whether their language is clear, but it won't matter. In Texas the employer can fire you for wearing blue suede shoes.
Other posters are correct on the legal ramifications. There really are none. Violating the EH policy is not a violation of law.
Keith B wrote:DaMonsta,
I am not a lawyer, but have read a lot of employee handbooks. The "...unless otherwise authorized in compliance with state law regulations and licensing requirements" statements to me would say you are allowed to carry as you are following state law and are licensed to do so. If it were my handbook, I would talk to HR and ask them for a clearer definition of the rule without disclosing you want to carry.
This is off the Utah Public Safety website. The language of the second sentence is very similar to the statements from the EH. The first and last sentence specifically define the "authorization by law" that is required. Of course, I am not a lawyer, just a concerned citizen.
CARRYING IN VEHICLES
Only a peace officer in the performance of his duty or a person with a valid permit to carry may carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle.
• Unless otherwise authorized by law, it is unlawful to carry a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle; on any public street, or in a posted prohibited area [76-10-505 (1)(a)(b)(c)].
• It is unlawful for a person without a concealed firearms permit to carry a concealed firearm into a bus
terminal.
It sounds like they are allowing CHL holders to carry at work. Good for them!
My handbook says something like "Firearms on company property unless limited by state law" in the immediate dismissal section.
Limited by state law could mean "if state law prohibits employers from restricting firearms" or "if the employee has a permit." It is pretty vague.
This is how I interpret the law and the employee handbook. Legally I can carry concealed as long as it is not posted 30.06 but they can fire me depending on their interpretation of "unless limited by state law." Of course Texas is an "at will" state so they can fire me anyway.
DaMonsta wrote:What does everyone think of this statement? I found it in my EH after getting my plastic.
"Carrying firearms or any other dangerous weapons, at any time, on premises owned or occupied by a Client
Company, unless otherwise authorized in compliance with state law regulations and licensing requirements."
Looks like it allows concealed handguns for police/security/CHL and prohibits rifles/shotguns for everyone.
I don't think you would break the law by having your AR15 in your trunk but they can fire you.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's on the internet, thank a geek.
When my wife worked for a major national retail chain about 4 years ago, I was surprised to see their only mention of weapons in the handbook was a phrase that said "Illegal weapons are prohibited on company property." They specified illegal weapons, so I presume they meant exactly that, and no more.
