TexasCHLforum.com

TxBlonde wrote:We are just going through the legal motions of this thing. It can be very tiring at times ..... Sorry about the rambling just needed to bounce some more thoughts off of people

TxBlonde wrote:Yes and even send my husband a letter saying they found no misconduct

TxBlonde wrote:They sent told them he was illegally carrying a firearm on a commercial vehicle and we sent the state proof where it wasn't

TxBlonde wrote:That is the Thing he received unemployment from day one.

Beiruty wrote:Most likely the OP could claim:
1) The sign is an old sign and unenforceable. (Does not help for the firing case)
2) Not all doors were posted.
3) No written policy was given when joined the company.

I know it is really tricky case, the OP has to show that he was dismissed not for the CC but because he refused to drive an overloaded truck.

Shoot Straight wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:

Wow! How old is that sign?

RiverCity.45 wrote:The case isn't being tried here in the forum. I'm thinking there's a courtroom someplace where that will happen. I hope all of this conjecture has offered some useful information that the OP"s attorney can use, though.

C-dub wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:Last Time I checked someone has to tell you that you can not have a gun before they can just fire you for having one

That is one way, but they can also have in the company handbook in any wording that firearms are prohibited in order to fire someone. Your husband's former company does not appear to have had that in their policy. I think they could also just have a gunbuster sign on the door and that would indicate company policy.

The requirements for prosecution are more strict. Someone can either be told orally or a proper 30.06 sign can be posted for all to see or the proper wording can be placed in the company handbook. If it is only in the company handbook they must be able to prove that your husband was given a handbook. From my experience, companies that are cautious will make each employee sign a form stating that the have received and read and understand everything in the employee handbook.

speedsix wrote:...my point was, if the sign doesn't conform to the written law, ignoring it is not illegal...the company can fire him for violating company policy...that's a different matter...carrying concealed quietly, they should have never known he had a gun...they just stirred up a mess to do a hatchet job on him...and made a lucky guess...if he can stand the wait, he ought to recover from a lawsuit...they were clearly trying to get him for refusing to break the law re: overweight loads...

TxBlonde wrote:Added sign pictures and I took these Pictures of the sign

sjfcontrol wrote:I understand, but that's not my point. You stated (highlighted in red above). As the OP mentioned (if I understood her correctly) there was an old 30.06 sign posted/left over from before they had the building (or "a" building?) Anyway, if your legal approach is that the sign is invalid because it was not posted by the current owner, that would imply that in order for the current owner to post the premises, he would then have to take down the old sign, and put up a new one. I wouldn't want to try to argue that in court. His argument would be that he wanted the facilities posted, and left the old, valid sign up to indicate that. You'd then have to prove/disprove what the owner had in mind. I think the sign would speak for itself. If the new owner DIDN'T want the facility posted, he'd remove the sign.

I'm just talking about the validity of the sign, I understand there is a manager that testified there was no policy in effect.

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:I know now to tell a judge that
There new tactic is they fired him because they think the old Article 4413 (29ee) posted at another building they leased at the time and the sign was there before they occupied it. (I know no bearing on who put it there) They think it is the Proper 30.06 Sign.

Interesting. IANAL, but I would think that only the person in control of the property could post an enforcable sign. For example, I could go to any building of my choosing and post a 30.06 sign meeting the legal language and size requirements, but I don't believe it would be valid unless I controlled the property.

So, are you saying if you leased a building with a valid 30.06 sign in place, and you wanted the place 30.06 posted, you'd have to remove the old (perfectly valid) sign and replace it with a new one to be enforceable?

TxBlonde wrote:Ok what is IANAL

TxBlonde wrote:I know now to tell a judge that
There new tactic is they fired him because they think the old Article 4413 (29ee) posted at another building they leased at the time and the sign was there before they occupied it. (I know no bearing on who put it there) They think it is the Proper 30.06 Sign.

TxBlonde wrote:UPDATE: Did a deposition on an old manager there and he admitted to no policy against guns until 3 days after this person was fired