Considering trying to get a city policy modified to allow CC

[EEllis]

I don't see it as a legitimate issue at all. An employer can only be held liable for the actions of an employee under certain circumstances, such as a failure to train, failure to supervise, etc. If the employee is not acting within the constraints of their job, it is very hard to hold the employer responsible.

All an employer would need to do is write a reasonable policy that says that employees are not to use the weapon to defend the business or other workers in case of a crime and not to have the weapon out during business hours. I know it makes it kind of silly to allow carrying then, but if the policy included that they wanted the carrying to prevent criminals from breaking in the cars to get guns, the business would be fairly well covered. The bad news for us would be that they would need to enforce the policy if someone broke it, but liability is actually not that difficult an issue, IMO.

Obviously, the lawyers on the board would know more about this than I do. This is based on my one course in business law for a college degree.

Yep and no one would sue if they had that policy. I mean sure they could spend lots of money and finally beat it in court, if you are right, but the idea that they wouldn't get sued is wishful thinking at best. All it takes is a city employee being involved in a shooting while they are in the performance of their duties and the city will be vulnerable. The you have the possibility of employees who may not follow all the policies. A dog catcher who holds someone at gunpoint for instance. You can say there is no liability because your "policy" says that is against the rules. Well you're right but how much in legal fees do you think that decision will take or would the city just settle and move on? Ignoring reality actually hurts the cause.

[jmra]

Companies are always going to feel safer operating within perceived norms. As we speak the norm is that perceived liability is lower restricting carry of firearms on their property than it is allowing carry. In order effect change, you have to change the norm. Only two things can change the norm;
1. A lawsuit that results in a huge payout by a company linked directly by the plaintiff to restricting ones ability to defend themselves and the presumption that the company by its action assumed the role of protector and did not fulfill its obligation in that role.
2. Legislative action requiring employers/companies who prohibit carry by employees and/or customers to assume the responsibility/liability of the role of protector.

Either one of these would dramatically change the norm and thus the policies companies would embrace in regards to concealed carry. Obviously my preference would be the latter.

[srothstein]

EEllis,

I agree that nothing will stop a lawsuit per se since anyone can file a suit for any purpose. But the costs of a lawsuit were not the discussion. I was pointing out that liability, i.e. the odds of losing, were easily managed. Even if they ban guns and a city employee, say a dogcatcher, disobeys the policy and has a gun and holds someone at gunpoint, they can be sued. They should win, but they can always be sued.

I do agree that ignoring reality doesn't help, but addressing the actual issue of liability can help. Point out to them that nothing stops the lawsuits, even the banning of guns, if you want. That is reality. Point out the immunity to liability for using a firearm in a legally justified manner doesn't stop lawsuits. All of this is reality, but point out that the actual liability can be managed. that is also reality.

[WildBill]

Companies are always going to feel safer operating within perceived norms. As we speak the norm is that perceived liability is lower restricting carry of firearms on their property than it is allowing carry. In order effect change, you have to change the norm. Only two things can change the norm;
1. A lawsuit that results in a huge payout by a company linked directly by the plaintiff to restricting ones ability to defend themselves and the presumption that the company by its action assumed the role of protector and did not fulfill its obligation in that role.
2. Legislative action requiring employers/companies who prohibit carry by employees and/or customers to assume the responsibility/liability of the role of protector.

Either one of these would dramatically change the norm and thus the policies companies would embrace in regards to concealed carry. Obviously my preference would be the latter.

Either one of these could dramatically change the norm ...
Maybe a Supreme Court decision, but I don't see either one happening or changing the norm.

[jmra]

Companies are always going to feel safer operating within perceived norms. As we speak the norm is that perceived liability is lower restricting carry of firearms on their property than it is allowing carry. In order effect change, you have to change the norm. Only two things can change the norm;
1. A lawsuit that results in a huge payout by a company linked directly by the plaintiff to restricting ones ability to defend themselves and the presumption that the company by its action assumed the role of protector and did not fulfill its obligation in that role.
2. Legislative action requiring employers/companies who prohibit carry by employees and/or customers to assume the responsibility/liability of the role of protector.

Either one of these would dramatically change the norm and thus the policies companies would embrace in regards to concealed carry. Obviously my preference would be the latter.

Either one of these could dramatically change the norm ...
Maybe a Supreme Court decision, but I don't see either one happening or changing the norm.

It's all about money. They will do what they feel protects them the most. Do I see either one of these happening? No.

[Jumping Frog]

Before one starts rocking the boat you should at least make an informed and thoughtful decision on whether it is important enough to you to risk your continued employment.

I have a friend who posts online under the screen name "Tweed Ring" who is very active in behind-the-scenes politics and who is now retired after 30+ years in HR. He compiled a bit of whimsy entitled "Tweed's Rules for Employment." It's a tongue-in-cheek list of things to avoid in the workplace. The issue in large organizations is once the topic of firearms is raised, there is intense pressure on HR to "do something". That "something" often turns out to be a negative event for the employee in question as well as all firearm supporters in that workplace.

Tweed's Rules for Employment are as follows:

1. I do not own a gun, and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.
2. I do not want to own a gun and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.
3. I don't want to talk to anyone who owns a gun, and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.
4. If someone is talking about guns, I shall walk away, and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.
5. My hobbies are very interesting and entertaining, but, I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.
6. The hobbies of my significant other, (if any) and children (if any) are very interesting and entertaining and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

Now, there are employees in this world who have the benefit of working under a labor agreement or an iron-clad signed employment contract. There are also employees who work in a small business for their father, or their brother-in-law, or their best friend. Such employees may have the freedom to poke this particular beehive with a stick without encountering adverse results.

For the rest of us, Texas has the concept called "employment at will". Now, I can respect someone's choices on either side of this equation. If a person needs their job to support their family and is unwilling to risk everything on the issue of firearms in the workplace, I certainly understand. If a different person feels strongly about their rights to carry firearms, feels confident in their ability to earn a living, and wants to go to the mat on this issue, they have my blessings and support as well.

However, we should all at least evaluate the options with knowledge of the risks involved so that we are making such an important choice as an informed decision.

[Jaguar]

I break all the rules, Jumping Frog. But I'm in a small town and would be the weirdo lib gun grabber if I did follow them.

[chrish20202]

I notice you're a Fire Fighter. Perhaps start small and work on getting the FD permission to carry. You may cite the shooting in NY where responding FF were shot in an effort to prevent them from rendering aid. You could make an argument that you and your FF coworkers are more likely to be

The first thing that leaps to mind is what do you do when you respond to a place that has a valid 30.06 or a no carry location? Sometimes we park and walk to find ourselves in another location that is posted, Returning to the truck to leave the gun is impractical. As much as I'd like to have the option to carry, it's not workable for FD/EMS in Texas.

[MeMelYup]

I notice you're a Fire Fighter. Perhaps start small and work on getting the FD permission to carry. You may cite the shooting in NY where responding FF were shot in an effort to prevent them from rendering aid. You could make an argument that you and your FF coworkers are more likely to be

The first thing that leaps to mind is what do you do when you respond to a place that has a valid 30.06 or a no carry location? Sometimes we park and walk to find ourselves in another location that is posted, Returning to the truck to leave the gun is impractical. As much as I'd like to have the option to carry, it's not workable for FD/EMS in Texas.

FD/EMS need to be addad to the Judges ans Prosicuting Attorney's. This is sarcasm as I don't agree with 46.035 and think it should be repealed.

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor at the time of the offense was:
(1) a firefighter or emergency medical services personnel, as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty under exigent circumstances;
PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(h-1) *[as added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., HB 1889.] It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b) and (c) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, was:
(1) an active judicial officer, as defined by Section 411.201, Government Code; or
(2) a bailiff designated by the active judicial officer and engaged in escorting the officer.
(h-1) *[as added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., HB 2300.] It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c) that at the time of the commission of the offense, the actor was:
(1) a judge or justice of a federal court;
(2) an active judicial officer, as defined by Section 411.201, Government Code; or
(3) a district attorney, assistant district attorney, criminal district attorney, assistant criminal district attorney, county attorney, or assistant county attorney.

[Dave2]

I notice you're a Fire Fighter. Perhaps start small and work on getting the FD permission to carry. You may cite the shooting in NY where responding FF were shot in an effort to prevent them from rendering aid. You could make an argument that you and your FF coworkers are more likely to be

The first thing that leaps to mind is what do you do when you respond to a place that has a valid 30.06 or a no carry location? Sometimes we park and walk to find ourselves in another location that is posted, Returning to the truck to leave the gun is impractical. As much as I'd like to have the option to carry, it's not workable for FD/EMS in Texas.

I realize I might be on some shaky legal ground here, but if someone's in a life-threatening situation and I'm in a position to help, I don't really care what the sign says. Really, when was the last time anyone heard someone trapped in a burning building yell out, "SOMEONE SAVE US!!! UNLESS YOU'RE ARMED, THEN DON'T BOTHER BECAUSE THE SIGN SAYS YOU CAN'T COME IN HERE AND WE ALL KNOW THAT SIGNS ARE ALWAYS PUT IN PLACE BY INFALLIBLE PEOPLE WHO CAN, WITH PERFECT CLARITY, FORESEE ALL CIRCUMSTANCES!!!"? Because I've never heard of that happening. In fact, don't we have a Good Samaritan law specifically for circumstances like these? Yes, yes we do. We also have a law that protects the Fire Dept (and others) during disaster assistance. Now both of those laws only grant civil immunity and we're talking about the criminal code, so let's take a look at what it has to say...

According to Subsection 33 of Chapter 2 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, "the fire marshal and any officers, inspectors, or investigators [...]" (emphasis mine) are considered to be Peace Officers. Don't Fire Fighters have a rank, like "Captain" and such? Wouldn't that make them an "officer", and therefore a Peace Officer (able to ignore tall signs in a single bound!)? Either that section exempts the Fire Marshall from such signs, or he's really tempting fate, because I've been around more than once when he was doing inspections in locations that are posted 51%, and I've never not seen his gun.

Of course, as always this is not legal advise or anything... I just can't imagine anyone, especially firemen or EMS, getting in legal trouble for violating 30.06 or 51% signs while responding to an emergency.