TexasCHLforum.com

Dragonfighter, great points above. And I fully agree my argument for CHL being some sort of "protected class" under law is a stretch, especially in terms of an employer-employee relationship. But consider this (and I'm not as up-to-date on the specifics of this as someone in say, the human resources field, would be), most large companies will now bend over backwards to provide their employees any and all manner of workplace safety and comfort such as ergonomic desk chairs, mouse pads, etc. (again, not sure of the law on this - but I know companies do it when they'd rather not have to). Plus there are countless OSHA regulations regarding safety of employees.

Not that a Federal executive branch agency would ever dream of making a ruling that actually supported civilian RKBA, but if - BIG IF - OSHA handed down a new ruling stating that "employers may not deny employees' rights to legal self-defense while on the job" that could solve all of our current work-related CC issues in one sentence.

I'd love for some folks much smarter than me (and much higher up the food chain of RKBA defenders - NRA etc) to explore these types of issues as an in-road to ensuring that employers and business owners cannot deny a law-abiding citizens rights to RKBA and CC.

The Annoyed Man wrote: You'll never be able to take away a company's right to insist that the employees not bring a weapon inside (because they have certain property rights which trump your rights when you are on their property) — any more than you could take that right away from a home owner on his/her own property. BUT, you can get legislation passed adding a "parking lot exception" to the CHL law which would protect CHL holders from being fired for securing their weapons in their vehicles before going inside that will at least ensure that you are not forced by company policy into being disarmed while traveling to and from work.

*** apologies for stealing the thread for a moment ***

*** and remember, IANAL ***

TAM, I agree with most everything you wrote in your post. The parking lot bill is a huge priority and should be pushed strongly next Legislative session. But I disagree that an owner's property rights always trump a citizen's civil rights, and that we have no hope of ever legally removing a company's right to prohibit weapons. And the comparison between a business and a home is not quite as apples-to-apples as you make it. There are already many things that the law says a public business must allow that you could legally deny in your own home. Businesses open to the public are treated differently under the law than private residences.

Here is a quick list off top of my head of people and items which the owner of a public property or public business may wish to refuse, but is specifically prohibited by law from denying entry:

• People of a certain race, religion, creed, sex, etc. The "protected classes"
• Guide dogs for the blind and others with handicaps
• Wheelchairs - not only can they not be denied, publicly accessible businesses must specifically make their buildings accessible to them (often at great additional expense to the business).

And employers cannot deny your employment (accept in certain specific cases) because of the above list and more, as long as you're willing and able to do the job.

Now, do the above-listed items fall under the same category as a CCW? Not yet And maybe not ever. But at one point in our not-too-distance past, any property owner could deny entry to anything in the above list and get away with it. It's a bit of a philosophical stretch, but some day perhaps our right to carry a handgun to protect our "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as guaranteed by 2A could be analogous to a disabled person's right to a wheelchair or guide dog.

Agree with others this is not a good career move, even if you have another job lined up. Don't burn bridges. This letter will burn bridges, or at least make many who read it consider whether to let you cross a bridge toward them again.

But if you simply MUST send it, please strongly consider NOT informing them of 30.06. Why ruin it for everyone else? Right now, it appears only you as an employee are barred from concealed carry and only with threat of employment termination, not with any legal consequences. Why draw their attention to this? Your argument with them is over them preventing your legal CC as a COMPANY POLICY. There is no need to bring up the legal arguments of legally preventing CC on their premises. If you really wanted to carry there, you could possibly do so legally (but at the risk of losing your job) as long as you haven't been verbally told no by someone with apparent authority. And, if you have been told verbally by someone with authority, then the conditions of 30.06 are met already and there is no need for you to bring up 30.06. Doesn't matter whether their written communication (sign or employee handbook) is 30.06 compliant if you've been verbally told no by someone with authority over the building.

Anyway, I'm running out to dinner or I could go on (I know, you're all SO SAD that I'm cutting myself off now ).

Do some thinking and soul searching before sending this.