Proof Read - Letter to Employer

[A-R]

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.

[gmckinl]

wgoforth: As others have mentioned it's too long. More importantly, two items might need revision or deletion as you see fit...

7. All CHL holders are 21-years-old or older.

It is no wonder that a bank in San Antonio has a sign which says "CHL holders are welcomed and appreciated."

The first about being 21 is factually incorrect (you forgot about the military exception). The Demographic Reports for Fiscal Year 2008 show the following numbers of licenses issued during that year by age: 18=2, 19=15, 20=19. When I read something and find an error like this, the whole article becomes suspect, at best.

Second point about the bank carries no weight to me because it is so vague. If you had said something along the line of "the McScrooge Bank on 5th Ave. in San Antonio" it would add authority to the statement.

[Dragonfighter]

I could see a day when "public" businesses like stores and malls which otherwise allow unfettered access to the public will have their ability to restrict entry by CCW or other law abiding citizens heavily curtailed. I.E. Let 'em in or provide armed security escorts under penalty of civil liability. Right now, you don't "have" to do business with one of these yo-yo's.

But an employee, even of one of these businesses has access to areas not available to the public. They are there conditionally and receive compensation for their service to the company. That places them in the position of selective access. You must meet certain criteria and again, as this is an "at will" state, you fail to meet those criteria and you'll "hit the hot top". No we are back to who I will, or will not allow into my house. Also the exceptions to who I, as a business owner, can not deny employment to are considered intrinsic traits. I.E. I cannot help being born a Caucasian, I cannot help being a male (surgical perversions not withstanding) and if I were blind or a paraplegic, it certainly would not be by choice. Whether I am carrying a CCW or not is a choice.

I will place one exception to what I have noted, it is difficult to fire someone for violating their policy on CCW if the "company" is civil service. I am personally aware of three incidents, one where the person was never fired under advice from the city attorney and two where they won their positions back, with back pay, restoration of leave lost, etc. on appeal. The governing factor being that under the city's rules they allowed people to continue in employment after being found to be involved in illegal activity (albeit after meeting certain requirements like rehab, probationary demotion) and then to turn and fire someone who would otherwise within the law...well. But that is civil service and I am not sure that it is a universal exception or limited to one entity.

Aside: There ya go TAM, I was at least as convoluted as you were.

[A-R]

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.

[havoc]

SIA....sorry I did not make my comment clearer. The 220,000 CHL holders in texas currently was a taken from the letter to the editor that wgoforth has written. My understanding is that there are closer to 450,000 to 500,000 CHL holders in Texas now, as opposed to the 220,000 stated in his letter. I think it is a good letter wgoforth has written, I just think there are considerably more CHL holders than he mentioned and that a better accounting of these license holders will help his point.

[Dragonfighter]

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.

Wording like that I could see, not under this administration but under a "small government" type. That said there are two things, ergonomics pertaining to job duties bear responsibility. Also OSHA regs are not law, however, if someone gets hurt or killed because you weren't following OSHA...yer in deep. AND, I don't know but I think OSHA also only has real authority over companies of a certain size...something like 15 employees plus.

[bdickens]

... Also OSHA regs are not law....

Really,now? Try getting caught violating some and see what happens to you.

[mr.72]

That letter is way, way too long to get read by anyone who values their time. And if they do read it, they are going to fire you, if not straight up for writing the letter, for some other reason.

If there is no legal 30.06 sign or wording in the employee manual, then go ahead and carry if you are serious about it and take your chances that you most likely will never get made, and if you do, you may very well get fired.

The company I currently work for and my previous employer both have the typical vague references to "unauthorized" firearms on the employer's premises, but also have similarly vague references that disallow alcohol and a myriad of other things or actions that are reasonably typical. Now, if I happen to be carrying at work and someone finds out and they try and fire me for it, then I will be happy to point out that they had beer at the company bbq on company time, and they
had wine at the Thanksgiving pot luck in the break room at lunchtime the day before Thanksgiving, etc. So they clearly allow these blatant breaking of the rules. They just don't have an official company policy saying you can drink at work, or carry a gun, or use bad language, or whatever.

The point if the employee manual and these vague policies is not to find a reason to fire people. If you think that your employer is looking for a reason to fire everybody then you don't understand business or you know your job is done for anyway. If I add so little value to my company that they will fire me for carrying a gun that I am not actually using to threaten other employees then they are going to fire me anyway.

I think it's a lot more likely that these policy things are put in place to give a clear-cut reason for terminating an employee who draws a gun on another employee or customer without cause, or to get out of an insurance liability in the event that there is a situation wherein someone lawfully uses a gun for self-defense on the property.

My company recently fired a guy who is clearly mentally unstable and I think there's a fairly high risk that he may come back here and "go postal" so to speak. Now, if he comes back here and begins shooting the place up and I manage to save lives and end the attack by drawing my own contraband gun, then I could care less if I get fired. I will be happy to be alive and to have done what I could to save others lives. My company would be foolish to fire me anyway under those circumstances, since they are short-handed right now anyway and I am in the critical path. I am confident that I am a highly-valued employee. Even if I walked right into my manager's office with a contraband item in my hand (such as a bottle of Jack Daniels...) I doubt they would do anything except say "hey, do me a favor and don't come in here with that out in the open, it's against our policy". The last thing they want is to be forced to fire me over some little policy thing when I am an extremely productive and valuable member of the team.

Anyway, long way of saying, if you send the letter, you might as well attach your resignation to it. There is little purpose in sending such a letter.

[mr.72]

... Also OSHA regs are not law....

Really,now? Try getting caught violating some and see what happens to you.

Most Federal rules and regulations are not law. But they "carry the force of law". We debate the validity of Federal rules on carrying firearms endlessly on this forum (search "Post Office" for an easy lesson). Clearly we expect them to have the same consequence as law. I think it is unconstitutional but what does that mean? Nothing. "Congress shall make no law ...", so instead they let a bureaucrat make a rule doing the very thing the Constitution seems to clearly prohibit.

[bdickens]

Well, it's not really a duck, but it has a bill and says "quack, quack..."

[Dragonfighter]

... Also OSHA regs are not law....

Really,now? Try getting caught violating some and see what happens to you.

Now, for the rest of the story:

Also OSHA regs are not law, however, if someone gets hurt or killed because you weren't following OSHA...yer in deep.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

SIA....sorry I did not make my comment clearer. The 220,000 CHL holders in texas currently was a taken from the letter to the editor that wgoforth has written. My understanding is that there are closer to 450,000 to 500,000 CHL holders in Texas now, as opposed to the 220,000 stated in his letter. I think it is a good letter wgoforth has written, I just think there are considerably more CHL holders than he mentioned and that a better accounting of these license holders will help his point.

havoc, wgoforth, et al:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... tr2008.pdf

The above link is the accurate information on Texas CHL's as of 12/31/2008, the most recent stats available.
I knew this was out there, but I had to roam around the DPS links a while until I found it.

wgoforth's letter is inaccurate in stating 220,000 CHL's.
havov's understanding of "closer to 450,000 to 500,000" is also inaccurate.

The correct number of Texas CHL's is 314,574.
There are 1,511 Texas CHL instructors.

SIA

[havoc]

Yep, apparently my numbers are wrong also. However, the number of CHL holders (314,574) is a year old. I thought I remembered reading on this site a couple of months ago that there would be over 400,000 and maybe closer to 500,000 Texas CHL holders by the end of this year. I reckon that is where I grabbed my numbers from. Have a Happy New Year everyone!!!

[chabouk]

If there is no legal 30.06 sign or wording in the employee manual, then go ahead and carry if you are serious about it and take your chances that you most likely will never get made, and if you do, you may very well get fired.

I think the OP has already been given a valid 30.06 notice, by the HR manager who told him he couldn't carry, but could leave it in his car. Oral notice doesn't require specific wording: "no guns allowed" is sufficient.

[chartreuse]

I am confident that I am a highly-valued employee. Even if I walked right into my manager's office with a contraband item in my hand (such as a bottle of Jack Daniels...) I doubt they would do anything except say "hey, do me a favor and don't come in here with that out in the open, it's against our policy". The last thing they want is to be forced to fire me over some little policy thing when I am an extremely productive and valuable member of the team.

Now that's true. I remember one job where a co-worker, who was annoyed that I couldn't do the impossible to rescue her project, went to the CEO to complain that I was showing the effects of alcohol. He replied "Of course he is, you stupid woman. He's been in the bar with me for the last three hours."

I should point out that this took place a long time ago, in a land far far away, where lunchtime drinking was still deemed acceptable at the time.