TexasCHLforum.com

I work at a pharmacy in the Dallas area and we have had a string of robberies at gunpoint at 2 stores within 15-20 miles of us in the past couple of weeks. My employer bans weapons of any kind in our employee handbook but I was wondering what would the repercussions be if I carried at work and had to defend myself? (If I have a CHL of course, and the company does not have a 30.06 sign posted)

My guess: I would be fired, but if it was justified at the DA said the same then I wouldn't be charged with any crime.

Is that correct? From what I have read I don't think company policies could change how I would be charged.

Thanks guys and gals![/list]

Certainly you could be fired. I am guessing that when you were hired you probably signed something saying that you had read the employee handbook or that you accepted the terms of employment as layed out by the employer.

You could bring it up with your employer and let them know that you don't feel he/she is providing a safe work environment. Then explain why. Never know, it might work.

OR, get a job at company that does not restrict employees from carrying.

It is a very big company and I know they would say NO.

I'm not at all worried about the being fired part really, just wondreing if carrying at work when company policy forbids it could get me in trouble with the courts.. if it ever came down to that.

HighVelocity wrote: You could bring it up with your employer and let them know that you don't feel he/she is providing a safe work environment. Then explain why. Never know, it might work.

I know you were being sarcastic but just wanted to add I wouldn't mention it at all. If you brought it up with your employer and they verbally told you you couldn't carry, you'd now lose your legal support and couldn't carry there no matter what.

Just make your best judgement call with what you feel most comfortable with.

Would it be possible for a company to take an employee to civil court for breaking the rules of a signed document (terms of employment)? I understand criminally there would be no case, but what about getting sued?

I think you should respect the corporate policy and not carry while working. I would bring it up to the corporate's attention that responsible/legal carrying is safe, etc. and ask a change in the rules, maybe find some more employees sharing your viewpoint.

You mentioned that you work at a large company and policy changes are difficult. I agree with you. However, I also feel employees should made every effort to follow company rules. Therefore, I'd still follow my advise above and bring up the issue (hopefully w/ a group of supporting fellow employees).

This is what I was told by my CHL class instructor: Employers are not bound to use the wording of PC §30.06 to effectively ban CCW.

Relative portion of Government Code:

GC §411.203. 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.

In other words, since the policy is no handguns, and you were made aware of that policy, you could be charged with trespass by a CHL, even without a PC §30.06 - worded sign/written notice.

For what it's worth, I am not a lawyer, and this should not serve as legal advice. Perhaps someone more familiar will chime in with a more definitive answer.

barres wrote:This is what I was told by my CHL class instructor: Employers are not bound to use the wording of PC §30.06 to effectively ban CCW.

Relative portion of Government Code:

GC §411.203. 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.

In other words, since the policy is no handguns, and you were made aware of that policy, you could be charged with trespass by a CHL, even without a PC §30.06 - worded sign/written notice.

For what it's worth, I am not a lawyer, and this should not serve as legal advice. Perhaps someone more familiar will chime in with a more definitive answer.

I can see how your instructor might believe this, but this is incorrect. I also suspect that a certain DPS attorney who believes "close is good enough" when it comes to the wording of a 30.06 sign might have expressed such an opinion in the instructor's school, but this is mere speculation on my part.

GC §411.203 is actually meaningless; nothing more than a statement of public policy. It was added to the CHL bill in response to opponents' contentions that employers wouldn't be able to stop CHL's from carrying their guns into the building.

An employer wanting to ban handguns from their property can do so by one of two means, or both. They can fire a person for violating a "no gun" policy, or they can use the criminal statutes. If they choose to use the criminal statutes, they have to meet the requirements of the Texas Penal Code and for CHL's this means TPC §30.06.

If an employer is relying upon TPC §30.06 to exclude handguns, they have to either 1) post a sign with the statutorily required language; 2) give each employee a written document containing the exact same language; or 3) give verbal notice that handguns are prohibited. If an employer chooses to use the employee handbook for this purpose, they typically require the employee to sign something acknowledging they have received and will read the handbook.

There are two very common misunderstandings about compliance with TPC §30.06 without the use of a sign; i.e. by using verbal notice or handing someone a card or other document. A document such as the employee handbook or a card given out at the door must contain the exact same language as required for a sign. However, verbal notice does not have to use that specific language. If an employer makes a statement that no guns are allowed, such as during a staff meeting, during a new employee orientation, or in response to an employee's question, then the employer has met the requirements of TPC §30.06 and the employee could be prosecuted for Criminal Trespass.

Regards,
Chas.

about verbal notification:
How effective is this really in court? I'd think that it'd be ill-advised for verbal notification to be given, as it could denegrate into a "he said/she said" battle.

Do you know of anyone actually being criminally prosecuted successfully when they were given verbal notice?

Thank you, Charles for correcting me. As I said, I am not a lawyer, and I am glad that someone with more knowledge of this subject was able to "set the record straight."

Further proof of what we already know: This is a great forum where we can get good advice regarding guns, shooting sports, and concealed carry law. Thank you, for that, too!

nitrogen wrote:about verbal notification:
How effective is this really in court? I'd think that it'd be ill-advised for verbal notification to be given, as it could denegrate into a "he said/she said" battle.

Do you know of anyone actually being criminally prosecuted successfully when they were given verbal notice?

The property owner can satisfy the court that he made a verbal statement, but it's much harder to satisfy the court that someone else heard it. Just because they said it, doesn't mean you heard it.

I once had to issue a trespass notice against a young man who had been temporarily staying with us while his parents were in jail. We told him that he had to go to school as one of the conditions of staying with us. He decided no skip after we had left for work, and broke into our house. The neighbor called police, who called me, and three cops and I gave him a very stern talking to.

Then at the end, my wife and I had to tell him verbally in front of the police that he could no longer come to our house or onto our property. The police had him and us sign a "trespass warning". They told me that without such a warning, especially if verbal notice is not given in front of police, it's almost impossible to prosecute criminal trespass.

Kevin

I think the whole risk to your job issue has been covered...No issues at all with the conclusion to that...

Since you work in a pharmacy, and are in contact with narcotics that can be dispensed etc etc...

I would think there "may" (I stress) be some risk criminally, if it is discovered you are carrying a weapon in that proximity to controlled substances...Regardless of your intent or history...

But thats just the first thing that pops into my mind...And not a spectulative opinion that I would hold against you personally...

Might be something to explore and discuss...

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I can see how your instructor might believe this, but this is incorrect. I also suspect that a certain DPS attorney who believes "close is good enough" when it comes to the wording of a 30.06 sign might have expressed such an opinion in the instructor's school, but this is mere speculation on my part.

Heeheehee. Right on the money there!

txinvestigator wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I can see how your instructor might believe this, but this is incorrect. I also suspect that a certain DPS attorney who believes "close is good enough" when it comes to the wording of a 30.06 sign might have expressed such an opinion in the instructor's school, but this is mere speculation on my part.

Heeheehee. Right on the money there!

We know that lady don't we TX, Charles is kind enough to listen to my rants about her and her interpretations.

ElGato wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I can see how your instructor might believe this, but this is incorrect. I also suspect that a certain DPS attorney who believes "close is good enough" when it comes to the wording of a 30.06 sign might have expressed such an opinion in the instructor's school, but this is mere speculation on my part.

Heeheehee. Right on the money there!

We know that lady don't we TX, Charles is kind enough to listen to my rants about her and her interpretations.

Ms "democrat I don't like guns driving my hippy VW beetle" attorney. ;)

Wow, lots of great info guys. I am going to have to look further into this..

Thanks again