Company Truck Carry

[BaleKlocoon]

I'm working in a very high crime area, and my company has a policy that we cannot carry in company trucks. My question is, if I carry in my company truck am I simply breaking company policy or am I breaking the law? My life is more important than my job, so I have no issue breaking company policy if that's all I'm breaking. But if that makes it against the law, I'm not willing to break the law.

[Allons]

I don't see how you could be breaking the law. Im not a lawyer though.

[BaleKlocoon]

Here's my thought on why it may be against the law, and I'm no lawyer either. The truck is their property. I feel like a company policy against carrying in the truck might be similar to a business owner verbally telling me I can't carry in their store. Once a business owner tells me that, I can no longer legally carry in the store.

[allisji]

Here's my thought on why it may be against the law, and I'm no lawyer either. The truck is their property. I feel like a company policy against carrying in the truck might be similar to a business owner verbally telling me I can't carry in their store. Once a business owner tells me that, I can no longer legally carry in the store.

two thoughts:

1.) does written or verbal notice apply to the company truck, or just to "real property"? Can you be convicted for criminal trespass if the owner gave you control of the vehicle? I don't know the answer.

2.) Can you be convicted for UCW if you are carrying concealed or open under the authority of your handgun license in the company truck? I don't think that you could unless the handgun was off of your person and in plain view.

I don't see how you could be convicted of UCW as long as the handgun is concealed or carried openly in a belt or shoulder holster so long as you have a license. So, if they apply 30.06/30.07 then you are at risk of a Class C misdemeanor and a fine of up to $200, and possible termination of employment.

I would think though that you would be protected from UCW charges by the motorist protection act as well, but I don't know how they might argue that the vehicle was in fact not under your control. But, I don't think that it could protect your from a 30.06 violation if the owner's effective notice can be applied to the company truck since it is their property.

Maybe you need to get some pepper spray, a stun gun, or a taser and have the police dispatcher on speed dial.

[mloamiller]

Here's my thought on why it may be against the law, and I'm no lawyer either. The truck is their property. I feel like a company policy against carrying in the truck might be similar to a business owner verbally telling me I can't carry in their store. Once a business owner tells me that, I can no longer legally carry in the store.

two thoughts:

1.) does written or verbal notice apply to the company truck, or just to "real property"? Can you be convicted for criminal trespass if the owner gave you control of the vehicle? I don't know the answer.

2.) Can you be convicted for UCW if you are carrying concealed or open under the authority of your handgun license in the company truck? I don't think that you could unless the handgun was off of your person and in plain view.

I don't see how you could be convicted of UCW as long as the handgun is concealed or carried openly in a belt or shoulder holster so long as you have a license. So, if they apply 30.06/30.07 then you are at risk of a Class C misdemeanor and a fine of up to $200, and possible termination of employment.

I would think though that you would be protected from UCW charges by the motorist protection act as well, but I don't know how they might argue that the vehicle was in fact not under your control. But, I don't think that it could protect your from a 30.06 violation if the owner's effective notice can be applied to the company truck since it is their property.

Maybe you need to get some pepper spray, a stun gun, or a taser and have the police dispatcher on speed dial.

I'm not a lawyer either and don't know the exact answer, by I agree with the thoughts above. In addition, if your only notification was via a written company policy (i.e. no one verbally told you), and that company policy did not include the exact verbiage from 30.06 and/or 30.07, then it would not constitute effective notice. Therefore, you would not be breaking any law. If they told you verbally, then that is effective notice and I think you would be breaking the law (depending on how the thoughts above might apply).

Just a thought - would posting 30.06 and 30.07 signs on the truck serve as effective notice?

[BaleKlocoon]

I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

[Soccerdad1995]

I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

That conversation may have changed things to your detriment a bit, depending on the exact wording that they used. It could escalate the offense to a Class A misdemeanor if they told you that you can't carry in any company owned vehicle. If they instead said that they can't change the policy because of insurance, then I would argue that this isn't verbal notice, but is simply a reference back to the written policy, which likely does not conform to the required 30.06 / 30.07 wording.

My company policy says that weapons are not permitted in company buildings, and violations may be punished by discipline "up to and including termination of employment". this is clearly not intended to be a legal warning, since they exclude the possibility of legal repercussions (not that their intent matters from a legal perspective). I have not questioned the policy, but if I did bring it up, and they simply said "no, we can't change the policy, and we can't make an exception for you" then that would not be a separate verbal notice of anything, IMHO. Note that IANAL.

In addition to pepper spray, look into getting a Taser. This assumes you aren't dealing with a blanket "no weapons" policy.

[PriestTheRunner]

I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

FYI the insurance thing is bull****. Thats the same excuse my company and others I have worked for have given, but when I asked my insurance broker about it (who handles 500mil+ annually in commercial insurance through their 5-person office), they basically said that is never a condition on insurance policies.

If the insurance company decrees one way or another, they are then liable to be dragged into lawsuits. If they don't stipulate, then the lawsuit 'stays with' the company and the insurance company (having not been named in the suit) enjoys the many protections our Texas government gives them.... (Including anonymity, legal payments relief and other benefits).

I have yet to see it in writing where an insurance company has ever done anything like that. Besides, if that were the case, why would your employment not be posted 30.06 and 30.07?... If insurance really called the shots. Its because some HR rep copied a copy of a copied, copy of an employment manual that came from who knows where and had it in there.

[bblhd672]

I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

FYI the insurance thing is bull****. Thats the same excuse my company and others I have worked for have given, but when I asked my insurance broker about it (who handles 500mil+ annually in commercial insurance through their 5-person office), they basically said that is never a condition on insurance policies.

If the insurance company decrees one way or another, they are then liable to be dragged into lawsuits. If they don't stipulate, then the lawsuit 'stays with' the company and the insurance company (having not been named in the suit) enjoys the many protections our Texas government gives them.... (Including anonymity, legal payments relief and other benefits).

I have yet to see it in writing where an insurance company has ever done anything like that. Besides, if that were the case, why would your employment not be posted 30.06 and 30.07?... If insurance really called the shots. Its because some HR rep copied a copy of a copied, copy of an employment manual that came from who knows where and had it in there.

The company could have been told that by their anti-gun biased insurance agent/broker. If you find another job, before leaving that one you should ask to see the company's liability policy where it states that no firearms is a condition.

[Flightmare]

I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

I wonder what the result/cost of a lawsuit would be, if an employee suffered an injury or death because the company forced them to disarm.

[PriestTheRunner]

I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

I wonder what the result/cost of a lawsuit would be, if an employee suffered an injury or death because the company forced them to disarm.

My wife and I have a standing agreement regarding that very thing if anything happens to me while up at work and my firearm (or lack thereof) turns out to be a contributing factor...

Hell hath no fury like a Texas woman's scorn..... lol

[BBYC]

I used to think trespassing only applied to real property but 30.05 lists "an aircraft or other vehicle," as property. I don't know if that was always the case, but it does now, and oral notice is oral notice.

[BaleKlocoon]

I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

I wonder what the result/cost of a lawsuit would be, if an employee suffered an injury or death because the company forced them to disarm.

My wife and I have a standing agreement regarding that very thing if anything happens to me while up at work and my firearm (or lack thereof) turns out to be a contributing factor...

Hell hath no fury like a Texas woman's scorn..... lol

Good idea. That way I can get revenge from the grave lol. For now I will look into a taser. That is not against company policy.

[Lynyrd]

Have you asked if you could drive your own truck and them pay you mileage?

[twomillenium]

I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.

Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.

I wonder what the result/cost of a lawsuit would be, if an employee suffered an injury or death because the company forced them to disarm.

Probably nothing, the employer did not force the employee to work for them, the individual chose to accept employment from the employer and become an employee and follow all legal policies set by the employer.