TexasCHLforum.com

You are right in that if you hit a by stander with a company car the company gets sued. However in Risk Management you can take certain actions in that matter to assist in mitigating your risk. (driver training, discipline procedures, a policy on driving a company car, etc). In working with risk, you control the risk factors you can control to reduce or eliminate the risk. WIth respect to carrying of weapons, a policy stating none is allowed reduces your risk. IF the employee carries any way then you have reduced the risk assuming you have some sort of check and balance procedures in place, such as random inspections of company owned vehicles. In the corporate world you have policies to limit your liability, I am sure you are aware of that is well. That is the whole purpose behind company rules and policy manuals!
Sorry to get so wordy but risk management is what I do for a fortune 100 company. As well as handle all discipline issues.

in the end if your company bans carrying in a company vehicle and you encounter a deadly force situation where, due to company policy you are unable to defend yourself, then in my opinion (not worth much) you may have a suit against the company. It would be neat to see if that would work.

USA 1, shouldn't our creed be, "Don't tell so they don't ask"! ?

I read your letter, I have not read all responses so please forgive me If I repeat what others have addressed.
Our company also considers company vehicles as company property. This has been upheld in many arbitration hearings. I am the discipline officer for our company which is very unioinized. The union members when disciplined have the right of appeal to a neutral aribtrator who in most cases is an attorney. The position that the company vehicle is company property has solid basis. In fact if you read the parking lot bill currently making its way through the House it is very specific in that it pertains to privately owned vehicles and not to vehicles owned or leased by the employer.

You cannot be prosecuted for carrying in the company vehicle as far as I see ( I am no attorney) but you can be terminated. You have to weigh the risk/benefit of your decision. The arguement is made that if you keep it concealed and keep your mouth shut you probably would be ok. Before making that decision you might want to understand the company as the owner of the vehicle has the right to search the vehicle without cause.

I realize you have a CHL. However under the current laws if the employeer permits you to carry or ignores the fact you do and you during the scope of your employment use the weapon to defend yourself and you hit an innocent bystander, the employer would be sued. SB 730 exempts the employer from liability to a point (Charles correct me if I am wrong here).

As much of a 2nd amendment supporter as I am, and as a CHL holder, if I owned a company I would really have to think long and hard about allowing my employees to carry while on my clock. And my hesitation is soley based on the liability that a jury may find I have by allowing you to carry or knowing you carry and not taking actions to prohibit it. As an employer I would not be willing to risk my company and the jobs of all those that work for me to support ones right to carry.

Having said all that, if the law exempted me from liability, I would have no issue with allowing it. But we live in a lawsuit happy society, fueled by lawyers looking for any way possible to sue anyone to make as much money as they can, what is right, what is wrong has no bearing on their actions. ( NOT ALL LAWYERS ARE THAT WAY)

Hopefully SB 730 will pass the House and make it's way to the Governors mansion for his autograph.