Rights of Employers OUTSIDE of company 'premises'

[dicion]

Hmm, you are correct, it does reference 'property', I'm going to have to read through this again and see if I can't make some sense from it. Very interesting.


After reading through it all again (for the umteenth time), I guess it all comes down to the definition of 'property', and whether a company vehicle is defined as such (which, has been stated that there have been cases to demonstrate).

So I guess my earlier analogy is true. If you carry in a rental car where the rental agency has given effective notice under 30.06 that it is prohibited on their property, you could be prosecuted for carrying (CHL Holders ONLY) on their property, which could include that car you just rented from them.

Whereas, it appears that since a non-CHL holder is not covered at all under 30.06, they could legally have a handgun concealed inside the same car, under the same rules, and not be prosecutable. I'm going to read through the castle doctrine/vehicle carry section again and see what I come up with on that.

[seamusTX]

The only purpose of 30.06 is to make CHL holders immune from "gunbusters" signs. The average number of convictions is about one every two years.

- Jim

[USA1]

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

you are correct sir

[dicion]

After reading the following 2 sections, It seems pretty clear to me (but then again, I read legalease all the time for my job)

Here's my reasoning:

The following only applies to CHL Holders, period. Only a License Holder can commit an offense under this section.

Code: Select all

PC 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:
34 PC s38.01. TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Govemment Code, on property of another without effective
consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.

A person who carries a gun WITHOUT a CHL would be charged under 30.05 if it was prohibited (among other things) and they recieved notice that "entry with a handgun was forbidden". Your Standard Ghostbuster's sign would meet that requirement I believe, not to mention texas law prohibits it.

Code: Select all

(a) A person commits an offense
if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other
vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in
a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1 ) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
...
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the
building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license
issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry
a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

Here is the law for carrying in a vehicle, basically saying 'if you control it, you can carry in it'

Code: Select all

PC W6.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if
the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's
control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned
by the person or under the person's control.

Now, Say that Said rental car agency has a 30.06 sign posted as follows:

Code: Select all

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Govemment Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"

This sign, in it's own wording, only applies to CHL holders as well. So a NON-CHL holder can completely ignore it.

Essentially Giving CHL's effective notification that they cannot carry on the Rental Company's 'property' but giving no notification to a Non-CHL holder, which allows them to carry on the exact same property under Texas law.

Maybe???
Time for a professional opinion?

Would this ever actually be prosecuted? Probably not, but it's interesting to note.

Mama always said I should have been a lawyer...

[seamusTX]

When 46.02 was updated in 2007 to allow vehicle carry, the legislature literally ignored all the complications of CHL law.

CHL law includes such requirements as displaying a license to a LEO, which seemed necessary to someone at the time (1995), but have proven to be useless.

These issues will never be resolved unless they get to an appeals court. I am betting that they never will.

- Jim

[Keith B]

After reading the following 2 sections, It seems pretty clear to me (but then again, I read legalease all the time for my job)

Here's my reasoning:

The following only applies to CHL Holders, period. Only a License Holder can commit an offense under this section.

Code: Select all

PC 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:
34 PC s38.01. TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Govemment Code, on property of another without effective
consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.

A person who carries a gun WITHOUT a CHL would be charged under 30.05 if it was prohibited (among other things) and they recieved notice that "entry with a handgun was forbidden". Your Standard Ghostbuster's sign would meet that requirement I believe, not to mention texas law prohibits it.

Code: Select all

(a) A person commits an offense
if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other
vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in
a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1 ) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
...
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the
building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license
issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry
a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

Here is the law for carrying in a vehicle, basically saying 'if you control it, you can carry in it'

Code: Select all

PC W6.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if
the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's
control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned
by the person or under the person's control.

Now, Say that Said rental car agency has a 30.06 sign posted as follows:

Code: Select all

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Govemment Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"

This sign, in it's own wording, only applies to CHL holders as well. So a NON-CHL holder can completely ignore it.

Essentially Giving CHL's effective notification that they cannot carry on the Rental Company's 'property' but giving no notification to a Non-CHL holder, which allows them to carry on the exact same property under Texas law.

Maybe???
Time for a professional opinion?

Would this ever actually be prosecuted? Probably not, but it's interesting to note.

Mama always said I should have been a lawyer...

A non-CHL cannot legally carry concealed on rental car companies property as that is UCW. You have to get into the car before you can legally have it concealed. As a CHL, you were not given verbal notice, and the 30.06 sign only applies to the physical property it was posted on. Once off of that property you can carry in the rental car unless every the car has a legal 30.06 sign posted (man, that would be difficult!! LOL) or you are given verbal notice that you can't carry in the car. As for the MPA for a non-CHL in the rental car, the same thing applies but you can only carry from your home to the car and in the car, not outside of it.

[dicion]

... and they wonder why so many people are frequently confused about the CHL laws.

Lol. Either way, it appears that end result is I cannot carry while working, or inside my company vehicle under my current circumstances. I guess my only hope then is to get them to change the policy.

Someone mentioned a bill-in-progress that would limit or remove employer liability under certain circumstances, I'll have to look that up. However, aren't they already liable for me driving their vehicle and potentially killing someone? (which we all know is much more likely) Actually, I guess insurance sort of covers that. Wonder if they have CHL insurance

There's a business Idea! CHL Liability Insurance! You'd rake in the cash, and the pay out rate would be exceptionally low!

Anyways, anyone have any articles/studies etc that would bolster my case against such a policy? I know articles and studies have been posted here saying how "CHL holders are 7x less likely to..", "Armed robberies have shown an X% chance of a fatal shooting even if the person complies..." etc. Any direct source links would be appreciated.

The other night, not even 3 miles from my house, someone robbed a church's chicken at closing, and shot and killed the manager, even though he fully complied with the demands of the scum, opened the safe and gave him everything. (He left 2 other workers alive). Over what? How much cash can a fast food place seriously have after a day? A few thousand? Maybe not even that, a large majority of purchases nowadays are probably plastic...

[Purplehood]

... and they wonder why so many people are frequently confused about the CHL laws.

Lol. Either way, it appears that end result is I cannot carry while working, or inside my company vehicle under my current circumstances. I guess my only hope then is to get them to change the policy.

Someone mentioned a bill-in-progress that would limit or remove employer liability under certain circumstances, I'll have to look that up. However, aren't they already liable for me driving their vehicle and potentially killing someone? (which we all know is much more likely) Actually, I guess insurance sort of covers that. Wonder if they have CHL insurance

There's a business Idea! CHL Liability Insurance! You'd rake in the cash, and the pay out rate would be exceptionally low!

Anyways, anyone have any articles/studies etc that would bolster my case against such a policy? I know articles and studies have been posted here saying how "CHL holders are 7x less likely to..", "Armed robberies have shown an X% chance of a fatal shooting even if the person complies..." etc. Any direct source links would be appreciated.

The other night, not even 3 miles from my house, someone robbed a church's chicken at closing, and shot and killed the manager, even though he fully complied with the demands of the scum, opened the safe and gave him everything. (He left 2 other workers alive). Over what? How much cash can a fast food place seriously have after a day? A few thousand? Maybe not even that, a large majority of purchases nowadays are probably plastic...

If you need a fix, you might need only a few bucks and no reason at all to kill someone.

[seamusTX]

Killing robbery victims who comply has to be done out of pure hatred or trying to live some "gansta" fantasy.

Killing witnesses is not that much of a factor these days, because most retail establishments have video recordings that are not on a videotape that the robber can take.

There was a robber in Houston several years ago who went into convenience stores when no customers were there and shot the clerks without even giving them a chance to comply. Every victim was Asian -- though it's hard to find a convenience store in Houston that is not owned by Asians.

To the OP: There are plenty of stories of crimes with good and bad outcomes in the Never Again section, but they are not indexed. Chris Bird's book I Wish I Had a Gun would also be a good resource.

Personally, I think your chances of getting the policy changed are zero. The company's lawyers have probably told them that they will be liable for anything that goes wrong if you carry with the company's permission.

Also, if you make yourself a squeaky wheel, watch out.

- Jim

[dac1842]

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.

[roberts]

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).

The same way if they allow you to drive or ignores the fact you do and in the scope of your employment use the vehicle and hit an innocent bystander the employer would be sued. Better ban cars on company property because car accidents kill and injure a lot more people than gun accidents.

[dac1842]

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.

[KD5NRH]

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Govemment Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"

So, for the rental car issue, a sign on the business door wouldn't cover the car, and I doubt they'd get much business with a huge sign on every car.

[dicion]

... I doubt they'd get much business with a huge sign on every car.

No, but who reads the paperwork you sign to rent one fully?

If it's in there, Anywhere, and you sign it. Guess what.

[seamusTX]

How is a car rental company going to find out that you have a concealed handgun in the car that you rented from them?

- Jim