TexasCHLforum.com

So what do you guys think of my company's stated policy on carrying a weapon? I work for an accounting firm that has partners as a consultant, travelling to client sites:

Possession of personal weapons by any partner or staff at any time on Firm or client premises, or on Firm business anywhere, is prohibited. Anyone who reports to work with a weapon, or is in possession of a weapon at work or on Firm business, will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

It's the "on client premises" and "on firm business anywhere" parts that get me... so if I'm working all day at a client site or out to lunch with a client and don't go to my office at all, I still can't carry?

Limey Hooligan wrote:So what do you guys think of my company's stated policy on carrying a weapon? I work for an accounting firm that has partners as a consultant, travelling to client sites:

Possession of personal weapons by any partner or staff at any time on Firm or client premises, or on Firm business anywhere, is prohibited. Anyone who reports to work with a weapon, or is in possession of a weapon at work or on Firm business, will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

It's the "on client premises" and "on firm business anywhere" parts that get me... so if I'm working all day at a client site or out to lunch with a client and don't go to my office at all, I still can't carry?

Yep, sounds like you also would be prohibited from carrying during any corporate travel. I thought I had it bad. I work for a private university and so, not only does work policy prohibit me from carrying at work - the law also backs it up making such actions actually illegal. But they have no written policy that extends the prohibition beyond the campus. So I can at least carry while traveling on business.

For a salaried professional, answering a telephone call from work could be considered to put one "on firm business". Since the firm can call at any moment, 24/7, that could put one in technical violation of the policy even while at home, or at the range for that matter. Not answering the phone would likely also put one in violation, and one's job in jeopardy.

It's not illegal, but it would be tough to enforce under those circumstances.

IANAL
Perhaps you should ask the company what provisions they are willing to make for your saftey and protection, Seems to me they put policy over both. They have a responsibilty to provide a safe work environment on premises. Homicide is a major cause of workplace deaths. Since they are denying you the ability to protect yourself off premises they may be culpable. Again IANAL so I may be completely off on this.

A policy like that will only change when the company loses enough good employees because of it.. IMO, if it's such a big deal for you, find another job... Start looking today. When you have another offer (from a company that has a reasonable carry policy), you can have a chat with your current employer and ask him to rescind his bad policy. If he refuses, you can vote with your feet.

Good luck.!

You are free to ignore your company policy, but you risk having to find a new job if you are caught. Weigh the risks and make your decision accordingly.

tallmike wrote:You are free to ignore your company policy, but you risk having to find a new job if you are caught. Weigh the risks and make your decision accordingly.

Yeah, the risk of getting caught with vs. the risk of getting caught without, while being shot at.

I looked into this, because the head safety officer just sent out an email this week on what to do in case of a workplace shooting. They did this in response to an increase in recent incidents...!

The choices are run, hide, or go Chuck Norris style for the groin/eyes. Yeah, right.

Limey Hooligan wrote:

tallmike wrote:You are free to ignore your company policy, but you risk having to find a new job if you are caught. Weigh the risks and make your decision accordingly.

Yeah, the risk of getting caught with vs. the risk of getting caught without while being shot at.

I looked into this, because the head safety officer just sent out an email this week on what to do in case of a workplace shooting. They did this in response to an increase in recent incidents...!

The choices are run, hide, or go Chuck Norris style for the groin/eyes. Yeah, right.

OK well a Mozambic two to the groin and one to the eyes works just fine.

Limey Hooligan wrote:So what do you guys think of my company's stated policy on carrying a weapon? I work for an accounting firm that has partners as a consultant, travelling to client sites:

Possession of personal weapons by any partner or staff at any time on Firm or client premises, or on Firm business anywhere, is prohibited. Anyone who reports to work with a weapon, or is in possession of a weapon at work or on Firm business, will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

It's the "on client premises" and "on firm business anywhere" parts that get me... so if I'm working all day at a client site or out to lunch with a client and don't go to my office at all, I still can't carry?

All right everyone, what am I missing here? Limey's employer can prohibit him from carrying on their premises with the threat of losing his job or prosecution if they follow the law regarding notification. However, I don't think they can legally threaten an employee with anything now anywhere else unless they are using a company leased vehicle. They are not supposed to even have a policy of that nature. A client could prohibit a non-employee by posting a 30.06 sign, but I'm not sure where exactly that falls in this case. Is it like the contractor situation? I think the client could prohibit someone like this, but my direct employer cannot prohibit me from carrying on someone else's property, right?

C-dub wrote:I think the client could prohibit someone like this, but my direct employer cannot prohibit me from carrying on someone else's property, right?

It's not meaningful 30.06 notice, but I believe they can fire you (or take other disciplinary action) for carrying a gun on the job, except within the narrowly defined parameters of the new parking lot law. Consider alcohol. It's legal (for most of us) to have a beer, but I'm pretty sure an employer can fire an employee for drinking on the job, even if they're at a client site.

apostate wrote:

C-dub wrote:I think the client could prohibit someone like this, but my direct employer cannot prohibit me from carrying on someone else's property, right?

It's not meaningful 30.06 notice, but I believe they can fire you (or take other disciplinary action) for carrying a gun on the job, except within the narrowly defined parameters of the new parking lot law. Consider alcohol. It's legal (for most of us) to have a beer, but I'm pretty sure an employer can fire an employee for drinking on the job, even if they're at a client site.

I don't know. There isn't a state law that says they cannot have a policy against drinking on the job. The new law regarding guns says that they can still have a policy that we cannot carry in their building, but everywhere else is okay unless it is a company owned or leased vehicle.

C-dub wrote:

apostate wrote:

C-dub wrote:I think the client could prohibit someone like this, but my direct employer cannot prohibit me from carrying on someone else's property, right?

It's not meaningful 30.06 notice, but I believe they can fire you (or take other disciplinary action) for carrying a gun on the job, except within the narrowly defined parameters of the new parking lot law. Consider alcohol. It's legal (for most of us) to have a beer, but I'm pretty sure an employer can fire an employee for drinking on the job, even if they're at a client site.

I don't know. There isn't a state law that says they cannot have a policy against drinking on the job. The new law regarding guns says that they can still have a policy that we cannot carry in their building, but everywhere else is okay unless it is a company owned or leased vehicle.

What new law says that? SB 321 only says an "employer may not prohibit an employee [...] from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees." It says nothing about client premises (or client parking lots, for that matter.)

I wish it were different. Heck, I wish they passed campus carry. But it is what it is, until we throw the rascals out.

apostate wrote:

C-dub wrote:

apostate wrote:

C-dub wrote:I think the client could prohibit someone like this, but my direct employer cannot prohibit me from carrying on someone else's property, right?

It's not meaningful 30.06 notice, but I believe they can fire you (or take other disciplinary action) for carrying a gun on the job, except within the narrowly defined parameters of the new parking lot law. Consider alcohol. It's legal (for most of us) to have a beer, but I'm pretty sure an employer can fire an employee for drinking on the job, even if they're at a client site.

I don't know. There isn't a state law that says they cannot have a policy against drinking on the job. The new law regarding guns says that they can still have a policy that we cannot carry in their building, but everywhere else is okay unless it is a company owned or leased vehicle.

What new law says that? SB 321 only says an "employer may not prohibit an employee [...] from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees." It says nothing about client premises (or client parking lots, for that matter.)

I wish it were different. Heck, I wish they passed campus carry. But it is what it is, until we throw the rascals out.

I don't get it. You're making my point for me. His employer can only prohibit him from carrying inside their building. They cannot prohibit him from carrying elsewhere.

C-dub wrote:I don't get it. You're making my point for me. His employer can only prohibit him from carrying inside their building. They cannot prohibit him from carrying elsewhere.

I already quoted what I consider the relevant part of the law, so all I can say now is we must be interpreting that quoted text very differently.

apostate wrote:

C-dub wrote:I don't get it. You're making my point for me. His employer can only prohibit him from carrying inside their building. They cannot prohibit him from carrying elsewhere.

I already quoted what I consider the relevant part of the law, so all I can say now is we must be interpreting that quoted text very differently.

Hmm. Are you sure we're not arguing the same side? Let's try something. What is your interpretation of the law on these points? I'm curious where it is we disagree if we actually do. My opinion is in ().

1. Employer can prohibit employee from carrying in their building. (yes)
2. Employer can prohibit employee from keeping gun in locked private vehicle in employer parking lot. (no)
3. Employer can prohibit employee from carrying gun in vehicle owned or leased by employer anywhere. (yes)
4. Employer can prohibit employee from keeping gun in locked private vehicle anywhere while on company business. (no)
5. Client can prohibit law firm's employee from keeping gun in locked private vehicle in client's parking lot. (yes maybe)
6. Client can prohibit law firm's employee from carrying gun on client premises. (yes)

Where I'm fuzzy is the possible contractor type relationship. I don't remember what's been said about that.