TexasCHLforum.com

apostate wrote:

Flightmare wrote:Indeed, I wonder if OSHA regulations could be taken into consideration for the employer failing to provide a safe working environment.

I think OSHA would be far more likely to ban firearms in the workplace than penalize an employer who bans guns.

It depends on who is heading up OSHA. If we could ever get a conservative elected to the white house, we might have a chance of getting an agency head who actually applies logic.

rotor wrote:Just to clarify, what specifically are they saying you can't carry? A handgun, all firearms, all weapons?

Also, we are still waiting for anyone to produce an insurance form that says the policy forbids LTC carry. Many claim this but nobody so far as I know can show such wording at least in Texas.

Most banks that I know of allow concealed carry FYI.

I don't think that you could win a lawsuit against the company if you were injured because you were "forced" to disarm. This is the same argument that you could sue a store that 30.06/07 posts and you were injured while shopping. Your choice to work for them or shop at the store. The consideration though is the possible carry of something like a Kel-Tec Sub2000 which technically is a rifle and this goes back to my first question, what are they saying you can't carry? I personally think it would be a pain to cart a Sub2000 around but I have one, it is a potent weapon, it is a rifle and not a handgun, and you "may" not be in violation of company policy with it. 33 round Glock mag is probably sufficient. I wouldn't tell them about it if the only thing they have banned is handguns.

Ideal thing in your situation may be a job change.

I agree that you need to consider your options based on exactly what they have banned.

If they have banned all "weapons" (and defined this broadly), then you may need to find another job.

If they have banned all "firearms", then you might consider a good knife, pepper spray, and Taser as options.

If they have banned all "handguns", then you could consider the Sub-2000 and other options, depending on the set-up of your truck. This would also be the only "ban" where 30.06 / 30.07 is applicable. Everything else would require properly worded trespass warnings (not just a notice the items are banned) before you are in actual legal jeopardy.

As for the negligence argument, I just don't think that a company is absolved of all potential negligence claims simply because their employees could have chosen not to work there, or their customers could have chosen not to shop there. The passengers and flight attendants on the Southwest Airlines flight that recently got a hole mid-flight will be suing Southwest even though they could have chosen to work somewhere else or to fly a different airline. If they can show that Southwest was negligent by improperly maintaining that plane, then Southwest will be paying up.

allisji wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

Flightmare wrote:

BaleKlocoon wrote:I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

I wonder what the result/cost of a lawsuit would be, if an employee suffered an injury or death because the company forced them to disarm.

Probably nothing, the employer did not force the employee to work for them, the individual chose to accept employment from the employer and become an employee and follow all legal policies set by the employer.

I think they might have a case. Ultimately it would depend on the jury, and whether they view possession of a gun as something that increases your safety or decreases it.

If the jury views possession of a gun as something that increases your safety, then the argument would be that the employer intentionally went out of their way to create an unsafe work environment. Similar to an employer that forbids employees from wearing proper shoes on a slippery floor. The employee may choose to still work there, but that doesn't completely absolve the employer from their obligation to look out for the employee's safety.

I have a hard time believing that such a case would be accepted in our current political climate. If it were, would you end up required to "prove" beyond reasonable doubt that the injured party would likely have not been harmed if he or she were carrying a self-defense weapon. Then of course you would be inclined to present evidence of any weapons training/certifications/proficiency that the person had/has. There are too many people out there who believe that a good guy with a gun is dangerous to society.

I'm talking about a civil case, not criminal. I agree that a criminal case for negligence would not be likely. A civil case does not need to be "accepted". The judge could dismiss it, if that's what you mean. And the burden of proof would be much lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Basically, you would have to show that the company's decision contributed in some way to the harm that befell the employee.

I do agree that a lot of potential jurors believe that all guns increase danger of harm at all times. You would need to avoid having those types of people on the jury, of course.

twomillenium wrote:

Flightmare wrote:

BaleKlocoon wrote:I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

I wonder what the result/cost of a lawsuit would be, if an employee suffered an injury or death because the company forced them to disarm.

Probably nothing, the employer did not force the employee to work for them, the individual chose to accept employment from the employer and become an employee and follow all legal policies set by the employer.

I think they might have a case. Ultimately it would depend on the jury, and whether they view possession of a gun as something that increases your safety or decreases it.

If the jury views possession of a gun as something that increases your safety, then the argument would be that the employer intentionally went out of their way to create an unsafe work environment. Similar to an employer that forbids employees from wearing proper shoes on a slippery floor. The employee may choose to still work there, but that doesn't completely absolve the employer from their obligation to look out for the employee's safety.

BaleKlocoon wrote:I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

That conversation may have changed things to your detriment a bit, depending on the exact wording that they used. It could escalate the offense to a Class A misdemeanor if they told you that you can't carry in any company owned vehicle. If they instead said that they can't change the policy because of insurance, then I would argue that this isn't verbal notice, but is simply a reference back to the written policy, which likely does not conform to the required 30.06 / 30.07 wording.

My company policy says that weapons are not permitted in company buildings, and violations may be punished by discipline "up to and including termination of employment". this is clearly not intended to be a legal warning, since they exclude the possibility of legal repercussions (not that their intent matters from a legal perspective). I have not questioned the policy, but if I did bring it up, and they simply said "no, we can't change the policy, and we can't make an exception for you" then that would not be a separate verbal notice of anything, IMHO. Note that IANAL.

In addition to pepper spray, look into getting a Taser. This assumes you aren't dealing with a blanket "no weapons" policy.