Concern over HB220 and HB511

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


ammoboy2
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:44 am

#16

Post by ammoboy2 » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:31 pm

Unless the bill specifically prevents firing by employers, we will still be at risk due to the presence of their employee handbook language stating the potential of displinary action (to include firing) for the presence of a firearm in a employee's vehicle. This will be especially problematic in the case of employers with the fences and gate monitoring. This will obviously be an issue with the big defense contractors of the metroplex who like to exert control on their employees lives and actions.


John R. Fuller
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:43 pm

Right to Work State

#17

Post by John R. Fuller » Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:56 pm

Let us not forget that Texas is a Right to Work State. That means that an employer may discontinue your employment for any or no reason. You as the employee are allowed to discontinue your association with your employer for any or no reason.

While this law lifts a crimminal charge from being levelled on us, it still does not prevent our dismissal from the company.

With that understanding, one could go insane thinking of reasons why their employer would fire them. Maybe you are too fat, skinny, white, black, bald, sick, lame, or lazy. My point is this. If you are fired because somehow your employer finds out that you exercize your Second Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, do you really want to continue being associated with that type of business or people?

I constantly write letters to the editor in the town where I live and work. I do have my cheering section where I work, worship in church, Masonic Lodge, Boy Scout Troop and so on. One day, however, I might offend someone with my comments in the paper, and I may be fired for exercizing my First Ammendment Rights to the U.S. Constitution. It happens everyday across America, and I am not in the least bit upset about it.

The United States is a wonderful place, as long as you realize that we are all equal and are allowed to associate with whomever and whenever we want. Employment is an association of sorts. My employer possesses every right to resent me for whatever reason he she it or they wish to. I think that we as CHL folks should keep the above observations in mind when we talk about "our rights."
I am not the first or the last...

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17609
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#18

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:20 pm

ammoboy2 wrote:Unless the bill specifically prevents firing by employers, we will still be at risk due to the presence of their employee handbook language stating the potential of displinary action (to include firing) for the presence of a firearm in a employee's vehicle. This will be especially problematic in the case of employers with the fences and gate monitoring. This will obviously be an issue with the big defense contractors of the metroplex who like to exert control on their employees lives and actions.
The bills would make it unlawful to terminate or otherwise penalize an employee for having a gun in their car. While Texas is an employment-at-will state, there are exceptions.

Who knows, other things may be in the works also.

Chas.

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#19

Post by stevie_d_64 » Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:08 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
ammoboy2 wrote:Unless the bill specifically prevents firing by employers, we will still be at risk due to the presence of their employee handbook language stating the potential of displinary action (to include firing) for the presence of a firearm in a employee's vehicle. This will be especially problematic in the case of employers with the fences and gate monitoring. This will obviously be an issue with the big defense contractors of the metroplex who like to exert control on their employees lives and actions.
The bills would make it unlawful to terminate or otherwise penalize an employee for having a gun in their car. While Texas is an employment-at-will state, there are exceptions.

Who knows, other things may be in the works also.

Chas.
This is true...And having been on the "dark side" of an employment situation, you may be protected from termination if you are discovered to have a gun (in their determination) on their premises, but I can guarantee you that you will be on a very short fuse with your boss and HR from then on out, any infraction they see will be blown out of proportion, and they will fire you on the spot...

I'm not trying to be a pain, but thats just the way it will be, and actually is now...Even without this being the law of the land at this time...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!


txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

Re: Right to Work State

#20

Post by txinvestigator » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:04 pm

John R. Fuller wrote:Let us not forget that Texas is a Right to Work State. That means that an employer may discontinue your employment for any or no reason. You as the employee are allowed to discontinue your association with your employer for any or no reason.
Point of clarification. A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. Texas IS a right to work state, but to what you are referring is at at will employment state.
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.


switch
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:06 am
Location: Venus, TX
Contact:

firing an employee

#21

Post by switch » Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:20 pm

This bill is designed to prevent an employee from being fired if they commute with a gun but leave it in their car at work and they have a CHL.

They probably had to put in the part about secured parking lots to get enough votes.

Some employers (Bell) have some parking lots that are secured and some that are not.

What no one had noticed/commented on is sub-paragraph (c):

(c) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil
action for damages resulting from an occurrence involving the
possession of a concealed handgun by a person licensed under this
subchapter.

This will encourage employers to allow their employee to commute with their guns.

NOTE: There is nowhere in current or proposed laws that protect a business from liability IF they allow/create a gun free zone. If you post a 30.06 sign, have you not implicitly agreed to protect all CHL's? You have told them they cannot be armed. Have you increased liability?

Right now, 411.203 clearly says public and private employers can prevent CHL's (emplyees) from carrying. However, at present it does not convey any liability protection. (Somewhere, there is a law that says we cannot be prosecuted for carrying in any building owned or leased by a governement entity, but I cannot find it in the CHL handbook. [that would NOT apply to government employees]).

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17609
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#22

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:28 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:. . . Who knows, other things may be in the works also.
HB992 :thumbsup:

User avatar

Lodge2004
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:30 am
Location: Humble

#23

Post by Lodge2004 » Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:33 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB992 :thumbsup:
I am concerned about HB992 because, unless I am reading it wrong, it requires me to notify my employer that I have a CHL and store my sidearm in my vehicle. While this may be helpful to some, I believe that in most cases it creates an issue that did not exist before. My experience with employers can best be described as - "Don't ask, don't tell".

By making it a requirement to notify the employer, I am forced to "come out of the closet". This creates an issue that did not exist in an enviornment where: 33% do know and don't care, 33% don't know and would like to keep it that way, 33% don't know and would be unsettled if they did.


switch
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:06 am
Location: Venus, TX
Contact:

hb 992 vs 220 and 551

#24

Post by switch » Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:50 pm

I agree. 992 requires the CHL to notify his employer, 220 and 551 do not. I have not compared the language between 220 and 551 but the are essentially the same.

Contact Rose and express your reservations, encourage them to support 220 and 551.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17609
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: hb 992 vs 220 and 551

#25

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:29 pm

switch wrote:I agree. 992 requires the CHL to notify his employer, 220 and 551 do not. I have not compared the language between 220 and 551 but the are essentially the same.

Contact Rose and express your reservations, encourage them to support 220 and 551.
Opposition to HB992 is very ill-advised. The goal is to have several bills dealing with the problem. Every time one goes down, the very strong opposition will have one less bill on which to concentrate.

HB992 does not require a CHL to notify their employer. For most employees/employers it will have no effect on the status quo whatsoever. For those employers that prohibit guns, they would not be able to do so, unless they set up a notification procedure as set out on HB992 and allow CHL's to have guns in their cars. This is modeled after Southwest Airlines policy. Is this an ideal bill? No, there is no such thing. It is a bill that lets us point to a Texas based airline as an example of a company that deals with homeland security issues on a daily basis and it does not feel CHL's pose a threat.

HB1037 by Farabee also creates a new provision in the Labor Code and it is not limited to CHL's. It also doesn't require notification. Again, we need as many options available as possible to blunt the opposition.

I don’t think most people realize just how difficult it’s going to be to pass an employer parking lot bill. The petro-chemical industry is strongly opposed and our friends in Austin are their friends. At to that mix the huge amount of money they have to spend and it makes for a very formidable adversary. It will be harder to get an employer parking lot bill passed that it was to pass the original CHL bill.

Chas.


tuckerdog1
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Georgetown

#26

Post by tuckerdog1 » Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:49 pm

I have a question about the secured/fenced/guarded parking lot. What is considered guarded? At my employer, there is a camera on the employee gate. Employees swipe their complany ID card to open the gate. Visitors must buzz for assistance. That assistance could come from anybody that happens to be in one of three offices that have monitors for the gate camera. Sometimes, nobody is in any of those offices, and visitors have to buzz & wait & buzz & wait & on & on, until somebody enters one of these offices & lets them in. Nobody is specifically assigned gate duty. Also, the gate has a long history of malfunctioning. It is not unusual for it to be inop for a week+ several times a year. When that happens, it is just left open until repaired.

Thanks,
Tuckerdog1


switch
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:06 am
Location: Venus, TX
Contact:

992 vs 220

#27

Post by switch » Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:07 pm

Bill 220 allows companies to prohibit guns in gated/monitored parking lots but does NOT require notifying the company that you are a CHL.

Bill 992 will not allow companies to prohibit CHL's from having guns, if the CHL notifies them.

All in all, I prefer 992 because it does away with the gated/monitored exemption.

Both bills grant the employer relief from civil suits. This should go a long way towards getting them off this issue. Why should they care if we have a gun in our car?

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#28

Post by stevie_d_64 » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:17 am

Charles...

After this last weekends discussion session with Alice...I am a bit concerned abotu the expansion idea behind these bills that would give exception or allow the notification of a non-law enforcement agency your capability under the Texas CHL law...

Thats was bugging me the rest of the day Saturday and that evening, but I just didn't get a chance to voice this to you...

The bills for the most part do something for us, but is it the correct direction to go to "tweek" our CHL law???

I have some mixed feelings about it, and would like your opinion on this...

If I am wrong you know me to be gracious enough to admit it, but these bills do not give me warm and fuzzies...I believe you know why...

Congratulations BTW on your award!!! Very well deserved!!!
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!


switch
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:06 am
Location: Venus, TX
Contact:

parking lots

#29

Post by switch » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:02 am

I do not see a problem with either law.

First, the employer could require you to notify them if you get a CHL and if your status changes (suspended or revoked). (See TSRA magazine re: Canon) Under penalty of termination. You have the option of NOT notifying your employer of your status if you choose, however, you lose the protection against disciplinary action.

The other laws give employers an exception if they have gated/monitored parking lots. They can prohibit carrying now in ANY co. lot so this would protect most employees. I think it is an improvement.

Also, the protection for employers from civil suits is a BIG plus. I think it takes away a lot of the pressure on employers to prohibit employees from having guns.

NOTE: It does NOT protect the employer if he creates a gun free zone. They could still be sued if they disarm someone and that victim is later killed/injured.

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Re: parking lots

#30

Post by stevie_d_64 » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:28 pm

switch wrote:I do not see a problem with either law.

First, the employer could require you to notify them if you get a CHL and if your status changes (suspended or revoked). (See TSRA magazine re: Canon) Under penalty of termination. You have the option of NOT notifying your employer of your status if you choose, however, you lose the protection against disciplinary action.

The other laws give employers an exception if they have gated/monitored parking lots. They can prohibit carrying now in ANY co. lot so this would protect most employees. I think it is an improvement.

Also, the protection for employers from civil suits is a BIG plus. I think it takes away a lot of the pressure on employers to prohibit employees from having guns.

NOTE: It does NOT protect the employer if he creates a gun free zone. They could still be sued if they disarm someone and that victim is later killed/injured.
Ok, I'm not cross with your opinion/analysis of this bill, but I have an exception...

What business is it of a private company or entity that YOU have a Texas CHL???

And it has been well established that employment in the state of Texas is not protected, regardless of any company requirements or regulations...

So I see this as the old tried and true "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" bill...

I'm pretty sure more repressive bills have been signed into law that hurt private companies/corporations in both the pocket book and employee relations...And never required employees to give out personal information other than name rank and serial numbers...And sure, drug testing to me is a necessary intrusive evil that effects more than that particular employee's sensibilities...

But whether or not I have a license that enables me to carry a weapon for lawful purposes, is no ones business but my own...

The more our right to keep and bear arms is tweeked in this particular manner, I have to object...

I do not think this is a good thing to allow a door to be opened by our government to allow private citizens or companies to hang as a condition of employment over our heads because we choose to jump through some hoops to obtain a license that says we can exercise a right we already have anyway, to obtain or maintain employment...

Maybe I'm blowing this up too much, and I am more inclined to be amiable to others opinions and such, but I feel fundamentally opposed to supporting something that can be abused by entities such as employers...

No offence intended by my rantings, but this hit a nerve with me for some reason...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”