Employer says "NO!" to guns in cars.

[captkilowatt]

I have a CHL and my employer has placed that 30.06 sign at the entrance to the parking areas. This is not a restricted area such as an airport or a port. My employer has also hired uniformed county deputies with every intention of doing searches of employee property such as lockers, autos, and lunch boxes. The explination for the searches is to prevent theft of company property, but guns in cars was also added. My understanding has been that as-long as a CHL holder did not take his or her handgun out of the car and place it on their person and enter a posted company bulding that no offence had been commited with the gun in the car, but now I am told otherwise by my employer. Is my employer correct? If they are correct what statutes are they basing the oppression of my rights on?

[Greybeard]

Quote/Question: Is my employer correct? If they are correct what statutes are they basing the oppression of my rights on?

Unfortunately, yes - for now anyway. Like the name implies, authority given in Section 30.06 of Penal Code.

We came very close in 2007 to getting "30.06 parking lot" problems addressed by new legislation, but it did not make it to the floor in time for a vote.

I notice this is your post numero uno. Welcome to the forum.

[Liberty]

I have a CHL and my employer has placed that 30.06 sign at the entrance to the parking areas. This is not a restricted area such as an airport or a port. My employer has also hired uniformed county deputies with every intention of doing searches of employee property such as lockers, autos, and lunch boxes. The explination for the searches is to prevent theft of company property, but guns in cars was also added. My understanding has been that as-long as a CHL holder did not take his or her handgun out of the car and place it on their person and enter a posted company bulding that no offence had been commited with the gun in the car, but now I am told otherwise by my employer. Is my employer correct? If they are correct what statutes are they basing the oppression of my rights on?

You will be breaking the Law driving past the 30.06 signs as long as you have a CHL. Those who don't have a CHL, can not be prosecuted for leaving the gun concealed in their car.

[Kalrog]

Others have answered your question - and I'm sorry it isn't what you wanted to hear, but I agree with their answers.

I notice this is your post numero uno. Welcome to the forum.

So I'll just go with a "Howdy!" And ask if you would allow your employer to search your car without a search warrant. They can't force you to do so, but they could fire you for not allowing it. Simple solution is to park off campus - is that possible?

[jimlongley]

Under Texas Law your employer is not oppressing your rights, he is suppressing a privilege granted by the state.

Having said that, and consider that IANAL, I would not expect a gun in a locked box in the trunk of the car to be treated as being carried under your CHL, but if your employer had banned all guns, then you're still in violation and at least could be fired if not charged.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Jim is correct; a gun locked in a trunk is not "on or about your person" so you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL. Since you would not be "carrying," then you would not violate TPC §30.06, but you could be fired.

Chas.

[BigDan]

Dell? Just curious. =-]

[KBCraig]

My employer has also hired uniformed county deputies with every intention of doing searches of employee property such as lockers, autos, and lunch boxes.

Uniformed deputies, even if working privately for your employer, won't be doing any such searches without your consent.

Even when they're working a security job, peace officers are bound by the same limits on searches as when they're on duty.

[nemesis]

My employer has also hired uniformed county deputies with every intention of doing searches of employee property such as lockers, autos, and lunch boxes. The explination for the searches is to prevent theft of company property, but guns in cars was also added.

I was a site manager for an employer who called a management meeting to proudly present new company policies. Please first understand that there were no existing issues with theft or mismanagement.

The new policy would provide that senior management could order body searches, vehicle searches and searches of personal property at any time, even though there had never been any reason to institute this policy.

Included in the new policy was the installation of "security" cameras but the location and positioning of the cameras provided more coverage of employees than customers. These cameras could be monitored remotely by senior management at any time and they could also access previously recorded video from the remote location.

I had a meeting with THE manager, told him I was deeply distressed with his paranoia but hoped he would recover from it and gave him my resignation.

[Kalrog]

Dell? Just curious. =-]

I doubt it - Dell never had valid 30.06 signs in the decade that I was working there.

[BigDan]

Just sounds like something they'd do. Plus my Sister-in-Law mentioned something about a policy change several weeks ago.

[Penn]

My employer has also hired uniformed county deputies with every intention of doing searches of employee property such as lockers, autos, and lunch boxes.

Uniformed deputies, even if working privately for your employer, won't be doing any such searches without your consent.

Even when they're working a security job, peace officers are bound by the same limits on searches as when they're on duty.

The company could write some kind of implied consent in order to park/work at that location. No consent - no job.

[WildBill]

The company could write some kind of implied consent in order to park/work at that location. No consent - no job.

I am sure they have done this already.

[Doug]

Sounds like you need to start looking for a new job.

[KC5AV]

Is there any way you can just park across the street?