TexasCHLforum.com

(BTW, we should all remember Southwest Airlines supports its CHL employees.)

I am glad to hear that...And I believe that is a great thing with Southwest...

But I am not so sure about the company I work for...

And if I am ever required to divulge my certification to a private entity, then I believe it should be required that before I am forced to inform them of this capability, that they are forced to publically announce and place in writing that they will not use this information in any way shape or form in the consideration or continued employment (or termination) of said individuals...

I'm sorry if I am being a stick in the mud about this, but I know that the potential for abuse of this information is just too much...Even if it is only a fraction of the population of this state...

Ironic, that since my wife and I both work at the same company, and that even before I got there, she found out that at least 7-8 people we work with directly (supervisors and other employees) hold Texas CHL's...Not including us...Not that it was a big sit down and talk about yourself topic at any one point...

I'm just thinking we need to be careful about what we talk about in situations like this...But thats just me..."Mr. Stick-in-da-mud"

switch wrote:I do not see a problem with either law.

First, the employer could require you to notify them if you get a CHL and if your status changes (suspended or revoked). (See TSRA magazine re: Canon) Under penalty of termination. You have the option of NOT notifying your employer of your status if you choose, however, you lose the protection against disciplinary action.

The other laws give employers an exception if they have gated/monitored parking lots. They can prohibit carrying now in ANY co. lot so this would protect most employees. I think it is an improvement.

Also, the protection for employers from civil suits is a BIG plus. I think it takes away a lot of the pressure on employers to prohibit employees from having guns.

NOTE: It does NOT protect the employer if he creates a gun free zone. They could still be sued if they disarm someone and that victim is later killed/injured.

Ok, I'm not cross with your opinion/analysis of this bill, but I have an exception...

What business is it of a private company or entity that YOU have a Texas CHL???

And it has been well established that employment in the state of Texas is not protected, regardless of any company requirements or regulations...

So I see this as the old tried and true "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" bill...

I'm pretty sure more repressive bills have been signed into law that hurt private companies/corporations in both the pocket book and employee relations...And never required employees to give out personal information other than name rank and serial numbers...And sure, drug testing to me is a necessary intrusive evil that effects more than that particular employee's sensibilities...

But whether or not I have a license that enables me to carry a weapon for lawful purposes, is no ones business but my own...

The more our right to keep and bear arms is tweeked in this particular manner, I have to object...

I do not think this is a good thing to allow a door to be opened by our government to allow private citizens or companies to hang as a condition of employment over our heads because we choose to jump through some hoops to obtain a license that says we can exercise a right we already have anyway, to obtain or maintain employment...

Maybe I'm blowing this up too much, and I am more inclined to be amiable to others opinions and such, but I feel fundamentally opposed to supporting something that can be abused by entities such as employers...

No offence intended by my rantings, but this hit a nerve with me for some reason...

Charles...

After this last weekends discussion session with Alice...I am a bit concerned abotu the expansion idea behind these bills that would give exception or allow the notification of a non-law enforcement agency your capability under the Texas CHL law...

Thats was bugging me the rest of the day Saturday and that evening, but I just didn't get a chance to voice this to you...

The bills for the most part do something for us, but is it the correct direction to go to "tweek" our CHL law???

I have some mixed feelings about it, and would like your opinion on this...

If I am wrong you know me to be gracious enough to admit it, but these bills do not give me warm and fuzzies...I believe you know why...

Congratulations BTW on your award!!! Very well deserved!!!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ammoboy2 wrote:Unless the bill specifically prevents firing by employers, we will still be at risk due to the presence of their employee handbook language stating the potential of displinary action (to include firing) for the presence of a firearm in a employee's vehicle. This will be especially problematic in the case of employers with the fences and gate monitoring. This will obviously be an issue with the big defense contractors of the metroplex who like to exert control on their employees lives and actions.

The bills would make it unlawful to terminate or otherwise penalize an employee for having a gun in their car. While Texas is an employment-at-will state, there are exceptions.

Who knows, other things may be in the works also.

Chas.

This is true...And having been on the "dark side" of an employment situation, you may be protected from termination if you are discovered to have a gun (in their determination) on their premises, but I can guarantee you that you will be on a very short fuse with your boss and HR from then on out, any infraction they see will be blown out of proportion, and they will fire you on the spot...

I'm not trying to be a pain, but thats just the way it will be, and actually is now...Even without this being the law of the land at this time...

Renegade wrote:Consider this oddity.

You, your spouse and your brother all drive separate cars to the same place of work, which is posted 30.06 at the parking lot entrance. You have an CHL, your spouse does not and your brother is a Texas peace officer (reserve) with CHL. You all carry concealed handguns in your cars. As you each of you pass the 30.06 sign, is anyone breaking the law?

No. 30.06 only applies to people carrying under authority of CHL law (as Charles said above). So -

Spouse has no CHL, so she cannot be charged. She carries legally under new traveling definition.

Brother while he has a CHL, does not carry under CHL law, he carries under Texas Peace Officer law in 46.15.

You while you usually carry under CHL law, are also carrying under new traveling law (just like your wife) and thus have carry rights from two parts of Texas laws (and your brother has three). Thus when you reach 30.06 sign, you are legal too, provided you keep in compliance with new traveling law.

The new traveling law pretty much nullified 30.06 wherever you can take your vehicle and stay in compliance with it.

Discuss.

Interesting...Need to digest this some more...Charles will say you're thinking like a law student...And I believe he means that in a nice way...

I'm not sure the "traveling exemption law" as we know it, is that warm a blanket to get totally comfortable with...

If we didn't have such a cadre of big city and county DA's being horses patoots about it, we might not be having conversations about this issue...

I'm hoping some resolution comes out this session...We've been working and waiting for 2 years to clear the air about some of this stuff...