Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Our employee manual doesn't mention firearms or weapons. One of the many reasons I work here.Keith B wrote:I have never seen it personally, but I bet Charles' employee manual doesn't have a restriction on carrying. That is unless it specifies you HAVE to carry a 1911.Embalmo wrote: I've never heard of a employee manual that didn't prohibit firearms.
Actually, if the verbage in the handbook was in the form of TPC 30.06, then it oweuld be illegal. Otherwise it is just a violation of company policy and you can be fired.camlott wrote:I would say that "unauthorized" in this case means any weapon which is not specifically authorized by your employer.
To the OP's question on if it would be illegal for him to carry...
AFAIK Employee handbooks do not determine law. I suppose they could get you for trespass, but just because you disobey something in an employee handbook does not mean you broke a law. (IANAL)
I think this point about the exact form of words is important. My employer's handbook says no weapons on the premises and has a line that says even if you have a CHL. But the wording looks nothing like the text specified in 30.06. I take this to mean that, should an employee with a CHL be discovered carrying at work, he or she could be fired, but would not be breaking the law (assuming said employee had avoided ever receiving verbal notice).Keith B wrote:Actually, if the verbage in the handbook was in the form of TPC 30.06, then it oweuld be illegal. Otherwise it is just a violation of company policy and you can be fired.camlott wrote:I would say that "unauthorized" in this case means any weapon which is not specifically authorized by your employer.
To the OP's question on if it would be illegal for him to carry...
AFAIK Employee handbooks do not determine law. I suppose they could get you for trespass, but just because you disobey something in an employee handbook does not mean you broke a law. (IANAL)
This is correct.chartreuse wrote:I think this point about the exact form of words is important. My employer's handbook says no weapons on the premises and has a line that says even if you have a CHL. But the wording looks nothing like the text specified in 30.06. I take this to mean that, should an employee with a CHL be discovered carrying at work, he or she could be fired, but would not be breaking the law (assuming said employee had avoided ever receiving verbal notice).
My employee handbook has no policy on any weapons of any kind, it only mentions drugs or alcohol. But I'm not gonna tell them, and luckily both the insurance and the risk management are both very pro-gun, so it's not gonna come from them.Embalmo wrote:I've never heard of a employee manual that didn't prohibit firearms.
Simplicity at its finest...bdickens wrote:Put it on. Cover it up. Shut up.
Except... there are places of work where employees are subject to random search. Which raises the question, what would be the preferred course of action if a person, carrying in violation of their employer's rules but not illegally, was selected for such a search?stevie_d_64 wrote:Simplicity at its finest...bdickens wrote:Put it on. Cover it up. Shut up.
lan40583 wrote:I'm an employee of a city in the Dallas area. Without going into too much detail about my actual job, I'll just say that I interact with the public on a daily basis but not in a building where carrying a concealed weapon would necessarily be prohibited.
In my employee handbook there is only one line referencing firearms, prohibing the "Possession of unauthorized firearms or lethal weapons on the job." My initial thought would be that the only "authorized weapons" in this case are those carried by police officers, but would the fact that I have a CHL mean that I am carrying an "authorized" or "unauthorized" firearm. I have no doubt that if I were caught carrying at work that I would be fired, but would I breaking the law?
As I understand it, the above is specifically verbal notice. There is no requirement for the wording to look like a 30.06 sign (let alone the legally mandated text size), when verbal notice is given instead.Keith B wrote:This is correct.chartreuse wrote:I think this point about the exact form of words is important. My employer's handbook says no weapons on the premises and has a line that says even if you have a CHL. But the wording looks nothing like the text specified in 30.06. I take this to mean that, should an employee with a CHL be discovered carrying at work, he or she could be fired, but would not be breaking the law (assuming said employee had avoided ever receiving verbal notice).
The law does not speak of "verbal" notice. It refers to either written, or ORAL notice. Notice given in an employee handbook is written notice, and must be worded according to 30.06 in order to be legally binding. (i.e. a crime, as opposed to cause for dismissal.) The form for ORAL notice is not defined, so ANY oral notice (from an individual entitled to issue it) is valid.Purplehood wrote:
As I understand it, the above is specifically verbal notice. There is no requirement for the wording to look like a 30.06 sign (let alone the legally mandated text size), when verbal notice is given instead.
Printing out the notice in a handbook is indeed, verbal notice.
I think you are interpreting the intent of the law incorrectly.sjfcontrol wrote:The law does not speak of "verbal" notice. It refers to either written, or ORAL notice. Notice given in an employee handbook is written notice, and must be worded according to 30.06 in order to be legally binding. (i.e. a crime, as opposed to cause for dismissal.) The form for ORAL notice is not defined, so ANY oral notice (from an individual entitled to issue it) is valid.Purplehood wrote:
As I understand it, the above is specifically verbal notice. There is no requirement for the wording to look like a 30.06 sign (let alone the legally mandated text size), when verbal notice is given instead.
Printing out the notice in a handbook is indeed, verbal notice.
