Who would quit their job

[boomerang]

They have 30.06 signs

There's your answer.

You should add them to http://www.texas3006.com/

[mr.72]

I would add it but I don't feel like registering for another site.

[SCone]

The biggest trouble with the way the law is written is in the word "oral". This one word gives the owner (or their rep) the authority to simply say, "No firearms allowed". And we, being the law-abiding folks we are, must then depart or be subject to trespassing. This is true whether there is a "legal" 30.06 sign or not.

This section troubled me in my CHL class and it still gives me cause for concern.

As far as the 30.06 wording within the employee manual, that is not required to be enforced. You are an employee, not a visitor. Since you are an employee of the company you agreed to certain requirements to be employed. Non-disclosure of company secrets, network use policies & more than likely, that you have read & agree to follow company policies stated in the employee manual.

This would more than qualify as meeting the "oral" part of the law.

[Bart]

The biggest trouble with the way the law is written is in the word "oral". This one word gives the owner (or their rep) the authority to simply say, "No firearms allowed". And we, being the law-abiding folks we are, must then depart or be subject to trespassing. This is true whether there is a "legal" 30.06 sign or not.

This section troubled me in my CHL class and it still gives me cause for concern.

As far as the 30.06 wording within the employee manual, that is not required to be enforced. You are an employee, not a visitor. Since you are an employee of the company you agreed to certain requirements to be employed. Non-disclosure of company secrets, network use policies & more than likely, that you have read & agree to follow company policies stated in the employee manual.

This would more than qualify as meeting the "oral" part of the law.

Written and oral are two different things.

If it's "written communication" and doesn't meet the requirements in the law, then violating company policy is not against the law. To use your example, maybe they can fire me but they can't throw me in jail for sending my friend a personal email from work.

[SCone]

Written and oral are two different things.

That is the point I am trying to make here.....

Carry on company premises, and it's the policy that rules, not the signage. It makes no difference how it is stated within the policy. Carrying with a "no weapons" policy violates the law that you agreed to abide by when you obtained your CHL.

Don't misunderstand this. As an individual, walking into a business, the 30.06 or 51% signage is the guide. As an employee, the policy (regardless of the wording) rules.

By violating the policy, you have willfully entered an environment that has banned the carry of firearms. And that'll get you in trouble everytime.

[3dfxMM]

It still has to be the 30.06 exact wording in the policy for it to be a violation of the law. It can be a simple "no guns" phrase in the policy for you to get fired for it.

[mr.72]

It still has to be the 30.06 exact wording in the policy for it to be a violation of the law.

If they call the police and have you arrested for trespassing while you are at work, in addition to firing you, my suspicion is that this little issue is going to be regarded as a matter of opinion or extremely narrow interpretation of the law. I think once you wind up leaving the premises in cuffs you can kiss your CHL good-bye, maybe go through a lengthy court fight to get it back if you want to be the test case.

[boomerang]

If they call the police and have you arrested for trespassing while you are at work

If they complain when I skip work, does that mean they gave me effective consent to enter and remain on the property?

[3dfxMM]

I am speaking hypothetically here since my employer not only has a policy against guns on company property but they also posted 30.06 signs at the entrances to the parking garages. Assuming that the 30.06 signs were not here, please explain how it would be a matter of opinion or a narrow interpretation of the law. The law is very specific about what is and what isn't effective notice. I know that it is against company policy to carry a gun here, even if I leave it in my car. That doesn't mean that I was ever told that in any of the ways that the law defines as effective notice. If they had the 30.06 wording in the policy that would be a different story. If I were caught with a gun here and asked to leave I would leave. How would that constitute trespass?

[Kalrog]

Carrying with a "no weapons" policy violates the law that you agreed to abide by when you obtained your CHL.

And that is the part that nobody else here agrees with. You have not broken the law and cannot be arrested for it. You can be fired, but no law has been broken.

[mr.72]

Actually I agree with it. I think it is splitting hairs to say that even though you know full well that the intent of your employer is to disallow you to carry your gun, since it was not written with particular verbiage in the employee manual, you believe you have the right to carry. Clearly the intent of the law is to require the owner of a business or other property to provide you with notice, written or verbal, that you are not permitted there with a gun. Maybe technically there is some way around it if the written notice doesn't conform to 30.06 but it's a real stretch to think that the intent is for any verbal notice regardless of content will suffice, while only very specific written notice will apply. I am not a lawyer and not trying to offer legal advice, only common sense. I wouldn't want to have to make this case in court.

[boomerang]

If they want to make it illegal for good guys to carry concealed, the law tells them exactly how to do that.

If they didn't follow the law, I have to conclude they didn't intend to make it illegal for good guys to carry.

[SCone]

Here's a link to a great chart

http://www.txchia.org/nftxcary.htm#fn

[Skiprr]

PC §30.06 stipulates exactly what written communication is acceptable as notice. That written communication must be the exact wording shown in 30.06(3)(A) in order for your carrying of a concealed handgun under authority of GC Chapter 411, Subchapter H, to be an offense of trespass. It doesn't matter where that written communication appears, whether on a card you are given, handwritten on the back of a napkin handed to you, or in an employee manual...but it must be the correct language to be valid.

Can you be fired on the spot if a manager detects a pistol on your hip? Sure you can. In fact, Texas is a right-to-work state, and you can be terminated for any reason so long as that action doesn't represent discrimination of a protected class.

Is it wise to buck the intention of that employee manual even if its language is incorrect? In my opinion: No; it's not a good idea. Are you committing a crime if the only notification you've received is incorrectly worded written communication? Nope; you're not.

Just my IANAL two cents...

[mr.72]

PC §30.06 stipulates exactly what written communication is acceptable as notice. That written communication must be the exact wording shown in 30.06(3)(A) in order for your carrying of a concealed handgun under authority of GC Chapter 411, Subchapter H, to be an offense of trespass.

Has this been tested in court?

The way I read it, I think it could be just as easily interpreted as one example of effective written notice, not necessarily the only example. I understand this is counter to the way most CHL types think about it. I think it is clearly a signage requirement but not so clearly a requirement for written notice in something like an employee handbook. I mean, why would they require specific written verbiage but leave no limitation on oral notice? you have to write some particular legal language, but you can just say "hey you! yeah you! guns a no-no! The bosses do terrible tings iffa they catch yousa with a gun! Yousa be banished! Mesa make you to go away now with yousa guns" and you are legally trespassing? Doesn't make any sense.

But what do I know? I don't even care. I have no intent to push my luck with my employer.