TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote: I have always felt that my boss and HR made the decision to select me to lay off based on my 2nd Amendment activism and CHL. I wish I could prove it.

2nd amendment activism is not a 'protected' class. Even if the proposed laws are passed, they will not be retro-active.

While they do protect a CHL from being punished, they do not give us 'hiring' protection/preference.

I do not see a problem with either law.

First, the employer could require you to notify them if you get a CHL and if your status changes (suspended or revoked). (See TSRA magazine re: Canon) Under penalty of termination. You have the option of NOT notifying your employer of your status if you choose, however, you lose the protection against disciplinary action.

The other laws give employers an exception if they have gated/monitored parking lots. They can prohibit carrying now in ANY co. lot so this would protect most employees. I think it is an improvement.

Also, the protection for employers from civil suits is a BIG plus. I think it takes away a lot of the pressure on employers to prohibit employees from having guns.

NOTE: It does NOT protect the employer if he creates a gun free zone. They could still be sued if they disarm someone and that victim is later killed/injured.

Bill 220 allows companies to prohibit guns in gated/monitored parking lots but does NOT require notifying the company that you are a CHL.

Bill 992 will not allow companies to prohibit CHL's from having guns, if the CHL notifies them.

All in all, I prefer 992 because it does away with the gated/monitored exemption.

Both bills grant the employer relief from civil suits. This should go a long way towards getting them off this issue. Why should they care if we have a gun in our car?

I agree. 992 requires the CHL to notify his employer, 220 and 551 do not. I have not compared the language between 220 and 551 but the are essentially the same.

Contact Rose and express your reservations, encourage them to support 220 and 551.

This bill is designed to prevent an employee from being fired if they commute with a gun but leave it in their car at work and they have a CHL.

They probably had to put in the part about secured parking lots to get enough votes.

Some employers (Bell) have some parking lots that are secured and some that are not.

What no one had noticed/commented on is sub-paragraph (c):

(c) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil
action for damages resulting from an occurrence involving the
possession of a concealed handgun by a person licensed under this
subchapter.

This will encourage employers to allow their employee to commute with their guns.

NOTE: There is nowhere in current or proposed laws that protect a business from liability IF they allow/create a gun free zone. If you post a 30.06 sign, have you not implicitly agreed to protect all CHL's? You have told them they cannot be armed. Have you increased liability?

Right now, 411.203 clearly says public and private employers can prevent CHL's (emplyees) from carrying. However, at present it does not convey any liability protection. (Somewhere, there is a law that says we cannot be prosecuted for carrying in any building owned or leased by a governement entity, but I cannot find it in the CHL handbook. [that would NOT apply to government employees]).