How dumb is this??

[muleman]

As a municipal employee, i am not allowed to carry at work. It specifically states such in the employee handbook....BUT the building I work in cannot be posted because its a city building....It just seems retarded that anyone with a chl may carry into our building EXCEPT if you work there.

sorry, just had to vent a bit...7 more years to retirement.

[Jaguar]

The vast majority of employers seem to do this. I cannot carry at work per the employee handbook yet even though they can put up a 30.06, they choose not to.

(ETA - 30.06 is a big ugly sign, we don't need that, but no Berettas allowed.)

[Gat0rs]

Same here.

[muleman]

I can sort of see it in a private business....its their business, they should do with it as they wish. but this is not a privately owned business....how can they tell us we cant carry?? Our state grants people that meet the criteria a chl. as a municipality they shouldnt be allowed to go against it. It already sucks that we have to have a chl anyway but good grief lol. They already know im not a criminal, they check us out constantly. And ive been drawn 5 times in 2 months for their "random" drug tests. just doesnt make sense to me

[Acer]

question:

It's my understanding that any written notice (in regards to an employee handbook, for example) has to conform to 30.06 wording to legally prevent a CHL from carrying on the premises of a place that's not otherwise restricted.

so, assuming it's not explicitly written that way, my understanding is the OP wouldn't be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if he/she carried at work. Granted, he/she could be terminated for violating the handbook, but not legally charged with an offense.

however, the way I understand it, if the HR manager or someone else authorized specifically says "firearms are not allowed on the premises" during the orientation, that also counts as (oral) notice.

Is that correct?

[muleman]

I always understood that being in the employee handbook was every bit as good as a verbal notice....

[Ipconfig]

question:

It's my understanding that any written notice (in regards to an employee handbook, for example) has to conform to 30.06 wording to legally prevent a CHL from carrying on the premises of a place that's not otherwise restricted.

so, assuming it's not explicitly written that way, my understanding is the OP wouldn't be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if he/she carried at work. Granted, he/she could be terminated for violating the handbook, but not legally charged with an offense.

however, the way I understand it, if the HR manager or someone else authorized specifically says "firearms are not allowed on the premises" during the orientation, that also counts as (oral) notice.

Is that correct?

My understanding is 30.06 makes it illegal. Employee handbook without 30.06 = can get fired if caught but not illegal.

[muleman]

if youre in a restaraunt, and the manager comes up and tells you they dont allow firearms.....if you dont leave are you in violation? And, does he have to tell you every time you come? or, does telling you directly one time suffice?

[RJGold]

question:

It's my understanding that any written notice (in regards to an employee handbook, for example) has to conform to 30.06 wording to legally prevent a CHL from carrying on the premises of a place that's not otherwise restricted.

so, assuming it's not explicitly written that way, my understanding is the OP wouldn't be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if he/she carried at work. Granted, he/she could be terminated for violating the handbook, but not legally charged with an offense.

however, the way I understand it, if the HR manager or someone else authorized specifically says "firearms are not allowed on the premises" during the orientation, that also counts as (oral) notice.

Is that correct?

My understanding is 30.06 makes it illegal. Employee handbook without 30.06 = can get fired if caught but not illegal.

I believe once oral (verbal) notice is given, you would be in violation of the law as well as in violation of the company policy (IANAL).

I had this scenario at a place I worked where nothing was specifically addressed in terms of carrying in the office. The company revised their manual, gave verbal notice by way of Town Hall meetings, and posted non-compliant 30.06 signage. A few of my employees came to me and complained that while the company had effectively prevented them from carrying (legally and according to policy), they had done nothing to stop non-employees who wished to carry (and of course none of this ever keeps bad guys from carrying). It became a big issue for a while but then died down. I left the company (for other reasons) but am now trying to craft HR language that will allow folks (properly licensed) to carry in an office environment.

***edited to add (properly licensed)

[JJVP]

if youre in a restaraunt, and the manager comes up and tells you they dont allow firearms.....if you dont leave are you in violation?

Yes, your are trespassing.

And, does he have to tell you every time you come?

No, one time is enough.

or, does telling you directly one time suffice?

Yes, one time is enough.

[Scott Farkus]

Until very recently, TXDOT did this also (prohibited employee concealed carry at work even though the public couldn't be barred). And, until the law changed last session, their personnel manual prohibited you from leaving firearms in your personal vehicles while parked on TXDOT (i.e. state) property. I'm sure many other state agencies are doing the same and I wish the Lege would do something about it. It probably wouldn't even need the Legislature - I'm fairly certain Perry has ultimate jurisdiction over the personnel policies of most executive branch agencies and could issue a directive yesterday if he wanted.

[RJGold]

Until very recently, TXDOT did this also (prohibited employee concealed carry at work even though the public couldn't be barred). And, until the law changed last session, their personnel manual prohibited you from leaving firearms in your personal vehicles while parked on TXDOT (i.e. state) property. I'm sure many other state agencies are doing the same and I wish the Lege would do something about it. It probably wouldn't even need the Legislature - I'm fairly certain Perry has ultimate jurisdiction over the personnel policies of most executive branch agencies and could issue a directive yesterday if he wanted.

This thread had some interesting discussion on TXDOT's policy. I wish more businesses would follow this lead.


http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... ot#p784961" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nightmare69]

Until very recently, TXDOT did this also (prohibited employee concealed carry at work even though the public couldn't be barred). And, until the law changed last session, their personnel manual prohibited you from leaving firearms in your personal vehicles while parked on TXDOT (i.e. state) property. I'm sure many other state agencies are doing the same and I wish the Lege would do something about it. It probably wouldn't even need the Legislature - I'm fairly certain Perry has ultimate jurisdiction over the personnel policies of most executive branch agencies and could issue a directive yesterday if he wanted.

Here is a letter from our attorney general about CHL holders having weapons in your personal vehicle on company property.

S U M M A R Y

An employer subject to section 52.061 of the Labor Code may not ban the transport and storage of handguns in locked private vehicles by employees with concealed handgun licenses in employee parking areas by posting the notice authorized by section 30.06 of the Penal Code.

A federally approved facility security plan under either the Maritime Transportation Security Act or the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards is not federal law that would preempt section 52.061 of the Labor Code.

No statute of which we are aware provides a specific remedy for employees whose employers violate section 52.061. And the Legislature has not authorized this office or any other state agency to take corrective action. Despite the lack of a statutory remedy, an aggrieved employee may, depending on the circumstances, have the ability to sue an offending employer under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op ... ga0972.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[texaszed4mc]

Thanks for the thread reference sir. The CHL policy for TxDOT to my understanding has been the same for the last 6-7 years on allowing CHL member to carry.

Until very recently, TXDOT did this also (prohibited employee concealed carry at work even though the public couldn't be barred). And, until the law changed last session, their personnel manual prohibited you from leaving firearms in your personal vehicles while parked on TXDOT (i.e. state) property. I'm sure many other state agencies are doing the same and I wish the Lege would do something about it. It probably wouldn't even need the Legislature - I'm fairly certain Perry has ultimate jurisdiction over the personnel policies of most executive branch agencies and could issue a directive yesterday if he wanted.

This thread had some interesting discussion on TXDOT's policy. I wish more businesses would follow this lead.


http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... ot#p784961" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;