TexasCHLforum.com

My employer has a company rule forbidding employees from carrying firarms on premise. There are no signs preventing customers with CHLs from carrying in the establishment. Am I risking anything except my job if I disregard the rule and carry anyway? Someone told me once that I would also be guilty of trespassing.

Thanks

I don't know the answer to that one but, my employer (a municipality) has a similar policy that forbids employees from having firearms on city property. It goes so far to forbid concealed carry while on city business except for those who have to carry a concealed weapon because of their job.

I'm pretty sure on opening weekend of deer season the no firearms on city property rule is violated because of folks leaving straight from work to go to the deer camp.

I have often wondered what would be the outcome if a CHL employee was attacked and injured or killed while doing his or her job because they didn't have a weapon to protect themselves with.

Trespass by a CHL holder is governed only by Penal Code Section 30.06. We are all familiar with the "notice" as provided by the 30.06 sign and its required language, but notice can also be verbal and the spoken notice need not follow the language of the 30.06 sign. If your employer verbally told you, either individually or in a group such as an orientation, that no firearms are allowed on the property, then you have received "notice" under Section 30.06. If the prohibition on having firearms on the employer's property is only in a handbook, then the written language must meet the requirements of Section 30.06 to apply to CHL holders. I've never seen one that did.

Please note, this deals only with potential prosecution for trespass; you can still be fired for violating company policy. Section 30.06 is set out below.

Regards,
Chas.

§ 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
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, 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 Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (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.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Has there been a case yet where the employer forbid a CHL'er from having a gun in his automobile, and who was attacked on the way to or from work? I dont need to carry at work, but I do need it to and from the job.

Too Tall

too-tall wrote:Has there been a case yet where the employer forbid a CHL'er from having a gun in his automobile, and who was attacked on the way to or from work?

None of which I am aware.

Chas.

Nothing forbids an employee from requesting the same status afforded non-employees. An employer which allows clients and visitors to carry without restriction may be violating the rights of employees.

I, respectfully, suggest that the employer be asked to apply the same standards to all persons entering the property.

The TMSA Gold Book (handbook) suggests that restricting legal carry by any qualified person is more dangerous legally than allowing unacknowledged and unrestricted carry.

The employer MUST understand that they WILL be held responsible for injuries or damages incurred by restricting rights of qualified employees without making any attempt to limit or prevent the carry of firearms by qualified and unqualified clients and criminals.

Well under GC 411.203 they can restrict it if they want. From their point of view they are much more likely to get sued from a CHL holder using their weapon than one not being able to. Sad but true, they have to cover their rears.

FWIW, I've thought about carrying at work, but it's a huge no-no (I work at a university), so I finally decided against it. To me, the risk of losing my job--or worse--is greater than the risk I run by not being armed. I do keep a pistol in my vehicle, however, which is legal even in a campus parking lot. YMMV.

When I was at Alcatel I made the mistake of pointing out that their "no guns" sign, a circled gun with a slash through it, did not meet TX 30.06 requirements and neither did the employee handbook reference to dangerous weapons. Within a week we were all receiving verbal instructions.

That is exactly why I decided to keep my mouth shut!

Right on Dr. Dave, if they don't have it right it dosen't stop us from carrying, and Please let's don't educate them.
Tom

My office lease space resides within a REIT-owned property, in a large complex of multi-tenant buildings and parking garages. None of the buildings bear any 30.06 signage (proper or otherwise), nor do any of the parking structure entrances.

Although I don't carry at work, it was recently brought to my attention that the lease prohibits firearms on the property - anywhere, including the buildings and parking structures... so, while I don't carry in the office, I do transport (properly secured) weapons in my vehicle, for example I sometimes come from the firing range to the office, or vice versa with one or more weapons in the vehicle.

We've been occupying the space for well over a year now, and more often that not, I've caused my firm to be in technical violation of the lease agreement without even knowing it. My employer did not notify me of this constraint, nor did the owner of the property through any signage. I learned of it "by accident" when doing some analysis work and reviewing our lease...

It seems patently ridiculous that I am prohibited from parking on the premises when transporting a properly secured firearm in a locked private vehicle. It's all the more egregious when there's no publicly posted 30.06 or other no-firearms signage anywhere on the property.

Is anyone aware of legal challenge of a similar situation?

I think I have it bad too, I work for texas instruments in Dallas and they have the 30.06 signage posted at the entrances to the compound, so with that I can't even legally secure a firearm in my car while I am at work.
however, the company property across the street from the main complex is not posted at the entrance and it is separated by public streets, so I could legally park there and walk across to the main compound, although I could still legally loose my job over this, there have been several that have is the past 6 years I have been here.

Night4creeper, As I understand your post, you are correct.

Tomcat

Alot of companies do that just to cover themselves.

Mine for instance forbid it in the employee handbook, but everyone carried. It wasn't a secret either, when I got my AR I brought it inside and the president, VP, manager, and coworkers were all checking it out.