Employer says "NO!" to guns in cars.

[pedalman]

If an employer will not allow a CHL to protect themselves at work or in their Parking Lot, and something Happens to the employee, robbed, beat down etc.. why couldn't that employer be sued for not protecting an employee?.

And does anyone see employers in the future being tasked by Law to protect employees since they won't allow an employee to protect themselves?.

Probably what HB 220 could have done for us, had it made it:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80 ... 00220H.htm

This is the history of the bill:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB220

I'm not up on all the nuances of our legislative process. Therefore, I don't know if this is dead in the water, or if it will be brought up in the next Session.

[Briankey]

Well, I forsee a time not far off when People will be taking Legal action against Employers who refuse to allow an employee to protect himself on the Job against Crime that's on the rise, for instance in the Convienent stores, they seem to get robbed very often.
I wonder how many Lawsuits are filed on behalf of the families of dead clerks?.


Brian


---------------------


Probably what HB 220 could have done for us, had it made it:

[dac1842]

The bigger question as I see it is this. The odds of something happening at work in reality are reletively small unless you work in a bank,convienence store or the like. The more likley scenario is that you are assaulted or victim of road rage while traveling to work. So with that in mind, the question to the employer is simple, are you prepared to guarantee my safety not only at work, but traveling to and from? Since your policy prohibits me from exercing my right to carry you are in effect taking away my constitutional right to protect myself.
My employer prohibits weapons anywhere on company property as well. But the railroads have their own police force, whose offices are 20 feet from mine, kind of takes away my arguement about protection at work.. I have it!

[stevie_d_64]

I have a CHL and my employer has placed that 30.06 sign at the entrance to the parking areas. This is not a restricted area such as an airport or a port. My employer has also hired uniformed county deputies with every intention of doing searches of employee property such as lockers, autos, and lunch boxes. The explination for the searches is to prevent theft of company property, but guns in cars was also added. My understanding has been that as-long as a CHL holder did not take his or her handgun out of the car and place it on their person and enter a posted company bulding that no offence had been commited with the gun in the car, but now I am told otherwise by my employer. Is my employer correct? If they are correct what statutes are they basing the oppression of my rights on?

You will be breaking the Law driving past the 30.06 signs as long as you have a CHL. Those who don't have a CHL, can not be prosecuted for leaving the gun concealed in their car.

Ironic isn't it...We would be fired and face prosecution, others would just be fired...

2009 cannot come quick enough...

[stevie_d_64]

If an employer will not allow a CHL to protect themselves at work or in their Parking Lot, and something Happens to the employee, robbed, beat down etc.. why couldn't that employer be sued for not protecting an employee?.

And does anyone see employers in the future being tasked by Law to protect employees since they won't allow an employee to protect themselves?.

Probably what HB 220 could have done for us, had it made it:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80 ... 00220H.htm

This is the history of the bill:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB220

I'm not up on all the nuances of our legislative process. Therefore, I don't know if this is dead in the water, or if it will be brought up in the next Session.

If employers and businesses are not responsible for damage, theft or other lost property issues with vehicles in their parking lots, why should they give a rats about human life???

This is why I had mixed feelings about the "parking lot bill" last session...I did not like the conditions that would have required us to notify (in writing, at one point) to our employers that we simply had a gun we would have in our vehicles while it was parked in the employee parking lot...Much less if we had to notify them we have a CHL...

I do not like conditions, as a form of compromise, to get a semi-good bill that would have needed to be tweeked (if it ever could be tweeked) in future sessions, passed right now...

If anything, we are going to have a very interesting session in 2009...Hopefully just as successful as we have had in recent years...

[dac1842]

Steve, I agree, Why would I want to notify anyone of my carrying a weapon in my car? That is an invitation for harassment, increase the odds of a break in since you will give the notice to some boss's secretary, who will tell someone else's secretary who will tell the world. Next thing you know you go out to your car and someone has taken your H & K, springfield, Kimber, Sig or Glock, or all the above.
IF Texas wises up and passes the parking lot bill then I would hope there would be no form of notification. NOt that it would help me in my situation as I drive a company vehicle and we are prohibited from carrying anywhere on or in company property, buildings or vehicles

[Cipher]

I thought parking lots and sidewalks could not be posted, even at schools. Furthermore, I though 30.06 signs applied only to buildings.

So, criminally, you're doing nothing wrong, but since Texas is an "at will" state, you can still be fired if it's against company policy.

[Kalrog]

I thought parking lots and sidewalks could not be posted, even at schools.

School property postings cannot be enforced beyond the statute as they are government entities - and posting on government property is unenforceable. But there is no such restriction for private entities. They can post wherever they want and then everything beyond the sign is off limits. The "premises" definition you are talking about does limit it to the building - and it is a good thing that it does for exactly that school example - but there is no restriction on private entities from making additional things off limits.

[kitty]

My husband works for a company that does not allow him to have his gun in his vehicle while on company property, that includes the parking garage. He has no choice to park there since it's a large complex. He works nights too, so he has to go to work unarmed, and come home unarmed. What do you do? I've often thought about suing them, but that would be hazardous to his career, he might lose it. I keep hoping somebody, somewhere will challenge this kind of thing in court, or that our legislature or the gov. will do something about it, but they haven't. So, we just follow the rules.

[KC5AV]

Kitty - that issue is being worked on in the legislature, but since our legislature only meets every other year, it will be at least 2009 before anything is done about it. Other states (there is a thread elsewhere about recent changes in Ohio and Louisiana) are getting those laws enacted, so there is hope that we might see those changes here.

[Cipher]

I thought parking lots and sidewalks could not be posted, even at schools.

School property postings cannot be enforced beyond the statute as they are government entities - and posting on government property is unenforceable. But there is no such restriction for private entities. They can post wherever they want and then everything beyond the sign is off limits. The "premises" definition you are talking about does limit it to the building - and it is a good thing that it does for exactly that school example - but there is no restriction on private entities from making additional things off limits.

I beg to differ.

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
Section (f)(3):

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.

That means they cannot forbid concealed carry (or car storage) in or on any public or PRIVATE parking lot or parking garage. The 30.06 warning applies only to the building, not to any area outside of that building.

Again, criminally, as per the letter of the law, the OP would be ok, he would face no criminal charges. However, as per company policy, and since there is no protection afforded us under the law, the company can fire him for breaking company policy.

[seamusTX]

Sorry, but that is not correct.

PC 46.035 says that it is an offence to carry on the premises of a school and certain other places, and that law exempts grounds except when a school-sponsored event is being held.

pc 30.06 makes it an offense to carry on any private property when you have been given notice. That could include privately owned parking lots and other grounds.

- Jim

[Keith B]

I thought parking lots and sidewalks could not be posted, even at schools.

School property postings cannot be enforced beyond the statute as they are government entities - and posting on government property is unenforceable. But there is no such restriction for private entities. They can post wherever they want and then everything beyond the sign is off limits. The "premises" definition you are talking about does limit it to the building - and it is a good thing that it does for exactly that school example - but there is no restriction on private entities from making additional things off limits.

I beg to differ.

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
Section (f)(3):

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.

That means they cannot forbid concealed carry (or car storage) in or on any public or PRIVATE parking lot or parking garage. The 30.06 warning applies only to the building, not to any area outside of that building.

Again, criminally, as per the letter of the law, the OP would be ok, he would face no criminal charges. However, as per company policy, and since there is no protection afforded us under the law, the company can fire him for breaking company policy.

Incorrect. 46.035 only pertains to prohibited places for the premises in subsection (3). 30.06 sates PROPERTY and that can include posting a parking lot or verbal or written notice that they are not to carry on PROPERTY.

EDIT: Jim beat me to it by about 1 minute.

[Cipher]

Well, crap!

[seamusTX]

It gets worse. Friendswood and Plano ISD have 30.06 signs on their parking lots, and police have said that they will arrest CHL holders or anyone that they catch with a firearm on their school property. I don't know if the DA would prosecute in either case.

- Jim