TexasCHLforum.com

In another thread I expressed that I would do this, but would like to revise my position. After thinking about it, I would not provide my company with and of my CHL or weapon information. However, if a condition of employment, I like Canvasback's idea. Before doing this I would point out the drawback in their position regarding those carrying under the MPA.

Z1166 wrote:How the heck can a private organization require you to consent your vehicle to search? IMHO, that's a complete violation of your privacy, especially considering your vehicle is an extension of your home in most CHL instances. Their "right" (company policy) cannot invade your RIGHT. And then you're trespassing if you do not consent to the search? Give me a break!

So true when you are on public property or with regards to someone breaking into your vehicle illegally. However, when on private property or as a condition of employment it is a different story.

Iunnrais wrote:Its an office building with a gated parking lot. Badge access to both the parking lot and past the lobby is controlled by a security company contracted by the building owners.

I almost got my threads mixed up.

So, you are not an employee of the property owner, right? This get's a bit sticky. Keith B. or a couple other guys will probably know more about the details than I do on this one.

However, I think if the property owner wants to prohibit everyone other than his employees from keeping a gun in their vehicle he must post a proper 30.06 sign somewhere in the parking lot.

Iunnrais wrote:No, no 30.06 anywhere on property.

Well the problem there is that the property owner maintains that they have the right to search any person, vehicle or property that comes on site at anytime. Refusal of a search by security gets you a one way trip off property permanently. (they actually threaten to proscecute for trespass if you refuse the search). Not being allowed on property would mean that I would be permanently unable to report for work... So while it may be legal for me to have it in my vehicle, it would still cost me my job if ever discovered. I would actually expect the property owner to request my company to terminate any violaters. They have already expressed similar requests for simple parking lot violation.

Edit: my company does close to 1bn in business with the property owner each year. Our board tends to bend over backwards to keep them happy.

I'm curious if your parking lot is a secured lot. Is it open to the public? It might be private property, but could anyone drive into the lot or is it fenced with a gate and have limited access or a guard that grants access?

I'm wondering if the owner of a strip mall can prohibit all the employees of the various stores located in that building from keeping their guns in their cars. If they don't work for him I guess he could post a proper 30.06 sign for the lot.

FNguy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jmra wrote:If I really wanted to be a jerk, as the owner of a corporation, I could start another corporation (with a different address/P.O. Box) that would then employ all of my current employees. The new corporation would then contract labor to my original corporation. All employees at the original site would then be contractors who do not benefit under the new law.

Such a persons would not be "contract personnel," they would be "leased employees" and the employer would be subject to SB321.

Chas.

Is that in Texas law somewhere? For example, the security guards at the chemical plants usually are employed by a guard service that places them at the plant. Does that mean they're also employees of the plant and not contract personnel?

I'd have to look through some of the e-mails from my company's HR department, but I think that is the case. Many court decisions regarding things like FMLA and overtime pay have gone against the employer because they did not think they were the person's actual employer since they were contracted.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're not argumentative at all. At first blush, what I posted appears to conflict with Tex. Gov't Code §411.205, but there is no conflict. In order for Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to a person, they must be carrying a handgun under the authority of their CHL. However, Gov't Code §411.205 imposes a duty to display our license on every armed CHL, regardless whether they are carrying under the authority of our licenses. Therefore, it would apply in our cars, homes, sporting events, etc.

Chas.

Thanks Charles.

I think this also settles my contention that a CHL holder cannot legally have a gun in their car without their CHL and claim they are carrying under the authority of the MPA. Doesn't it?

lkd wrote:

Iunnrais wrote:Agreed. Just double checked our employee handbook and it is deliberately vague on what constitutes an offense.

"To ensure orderly operations and provide the best possible work environment, <XYZ> expects employees to follow rules of conduct that will protect the interests and safety of all employees and the organization.

It is not possible to list all forms of behavior that are considered unacceptable in the workplace.

Although employment with <XYZ> is based on mutual consent, both the employee and the Company have the right to terminate employment at-will, with or without cause or advance notice."

Possibly, my understanding it that the law is meant to establish that your vehicle is your private domain like your home. It is legally no different than them searching your home. If you get fired for it, I'm sure you can take it to court for wrongful termination and likely win, but you'll still be out of a job.

I don't think this is correct. We now have the right to protect our car like it was our home, but for purposes of a search by a company, not a law enforcement agency, our car or truck doesn't have those same rights. An RV like a trailer, motorhome, or camper mounted onto a pickup is given those same protections a home is from searches. I don't remember, someone else might, but no matter what we have signed as a condition of employment, I don't think an employer can search an RV and I think if they tried to terminate someone because they were not allowed to they would lose in court if it was taken that far.

So, I would think the thing to do if my company wants to search my car for "stolen property" after September 1, 2011, would be to let them and let them find the gun. This way if they do terminate me later for nothing I can point to this as a reason. The only times I'm aware of my company terminating someone for no reason is during the first 90 days where it is spelled out in our employment contracts that this can happen. This usually happens because we find out that their personality doesn't mesh with coworkers or just isn't suited for this type of work. Every other time I can think of they have terminated for a reason and explained that reason to the person being terminated. This is especially useful when terminating someone in a protected class so they will not attempt to sue us for wrongful termination.

I think a company that doesn't give a reason for termination after discovering the gun will have a tough time proving it wasn't for that reason if taken to court. They will probably start scrambling for other reasons that may not be so easy to find.

Katygunnut wrote:

C-dub wrote:It might happen, but I would also bet that if it did the employer would lose in court if challenged.

Not only that, but under this scenario, there would be no risk of your employer searching your car (which is not on their property) and discovering the weapon in the first place.

Oh, that's beautiful! Bonus.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

i8godzilla wrote:

jmra wrote:If I really wanted to be a jerk, as the owner of a corporation, I could start another corporation (with a different address/P.O. Box) that would then employ all of my current employees. The new corporation would then contract labor to my original corporation. All employees at the original site would then be contractors who do not benefit under the new law.

It would be easier to lease the parking lot to a new company. That company could then post the parking lot 30.06. Employees could be required to buy a parking pass from the new company if they wished to park there. The employer could even reimburse the employees' parking fees.

Dare you to bet me that this will not happen....................

That wouldn't work for at least two reasons. First, TPC §30.06 doesn't apply to a CHL unless they are carrying pursuant to their CHL. Since having a handgun in your car isn't illegal (Motorist Protection Act), you would not be carrying pursuant to your CHL. Also, a person could put the handgun in the truck and it would not be "on or about [their] person" so they wouldn't be "carrying."

Chas.

Hello Charles.

In one or more older threads the discussion of a CHL holder who forgets their license could carry under the MPA was discussed. It was my contention that as CHL holders we cannot carry under the MPA. I don't remember if you ever weighed in on those discussions. Are you saying that it is possible for a CHL holder to legally have a gun in their car without their CHL on them under the MPA?

It might happen, but I would also bet that if it did the employer would lose in court if challenged.