TexasCHLforum.com

Again, they are confidential to the Government.

If you're not saying what the companies are doing is illegal, then we agree. I have no problem whatsoever with your using anything you want to convince companies not to make their own lists. More power to you in that respect!

That's my main goal is to use whatever influence I have as an industry representative to prevent companies from looking for reason to discipline/fire employees over this new law.

I have also tried common sense with them in explaining that they are in fact creating liability. If a company fires an employee that they KNOW has a firearm, they are then going to use an unarmed security guard to escort them TO their firearm.

I really hope that the next session addresses the few hundred thousand Texans who were left out by SB321 such as contractors and chemical plant/refinery workers. My initial post in this thread was intended to warn those employees of companies using the declaration forms that many of these companies fully intend to use these forms to find non-compliance and terminate employees for not following the new company policy.

sjfcontrol wrote:

canvasbck wrote:

GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS.

The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. The department shall, on written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, disclose to any other individual whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552, except that the applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records on request and the payment of a reasonable fee. The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the person or agency making the request. This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department.

Above is the actual law being discussed. The bolded part is the part that makes what these companies are doing seem somewhat suspect. (BTW, 411.193 is the section that allows DPS to release statistical data) The State Fair has taken all mention of recording the names of CHL holders from their FAQ's and other parts of their website.

Thank you all for the debate, it led me to do some more research and forward some information to some of those companies that are planning on using a declaration form in an effort to persuade them to not force the issue of declaration forms. I'm glad I was able to persuade my company to stay as far from these forms as possible.

I would love for Charles to chime in and get his take on the legality of employers requiring these firearms declaration forms.

The "open records law" GC section 552, deals with "open government". It is concerned about what information GOVERNMENT releases to the public. It has nothing to do with what information can be collected or disseminated by individuals or companies.

If something is not specifically illegal by code, it's legal.

If you want to highlight just a few words from a sentence, what about this statement?

all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential

I'm not saying that what these other companies are doing is expressly illegal. What I am contending is that it could possibly be challenged based on this law. The law can at least be used in an effort to dissuade companies from requiring paperwork that serves no purpose other than to make it difficult for employees (who are allowed under SB321) to store a firearm in a locked vehicle based on the risk of litigation.

GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS.

The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. The department shall, on written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, disclose to any other individual whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552, except that the applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records on request and the payment of a reasonable fee. The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the person or agency making the request. This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department.

Above is the actual law being discussed. The bolded part is the part that makes what these companies are doing seem somewhat suspect. (BTW, 411.193 is the section that allows DPS to release statistical data) The State Fair has taken all mention of recording the names of CHL holders from their FAQ's and other parts of their website.

Thank you all for the debate, it led me to do some more research and forward some information to some of those companies that are planning on using a declaration form in an effort to persuade them to not force the issue of declaration forms. I'm glad I was able to persuade my company to stay as far from these forms as possible.

I would love for Charles to chime in and get his take on the legality of employers requiring these firearms declaration forms.

MoJo wrote:Thanks all, it is a chemical plant but, the parking lot is unfenced and not secured. I think the company is in the wrong demanding the employees register. I still don't have pockets deep enough to be the test case.

As I have stated before, I'm the FSO for a chemical plant. As part of my role, I had to develop the policy for our facility to be in compliance with the new law. Being a CHL holder, I was obviously biased towards being as permissive as I could get away with. While developing our policy, we conference called with several other companies to get a feel for what the "industry standard" was going to be. It is suprising how many companies are planning on requiring "firearms declaration forms". From what I could gain from the companies that will be instituting this form, I HIGHLY recommend that you fill out the form if you plan on bringing a firearm on the premises. Many of them are looking for opportunities to discipline/fire folks for violating company policy. One company, that will not be mentioned by name, is even planning on making employees list the brand, model, and serial number of any firearms that you intend to bring onto the property. They have stated that any employee that brings on a firearm that has not been declared will face termination. They are getting away from this because they are not prohibiting the employee from bringing the firearm onto the property, they are "just setting company policies for those who chose to store a firearm in their vehicle". There is a host of other rules that many of them are putting on employees who utilize the new law.

I have warned some of these companies that I believe that they are skating dangerously close to imposing a defacto ban on firearms by making it so difficult to comply with the companies' rules that very few would be in compliance. They didn't really care. I hope that someone is successful in sueing some of these Orwellian companies.

Suffice it to say that our facility has approved a procedure that not only comlies with the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law. CHL holders will not have to fill out silly forms or identify themselves as someone who has a firearm. We will also not be conducting random searches with dogs, as I have heard several other companies are planning to do. I really hope the legislature fixes the overzealous companies that are planning on neutering this law.