Employer's "no weapons" policy = effective notice?

[Andiceman]

I'm pretty sure that an employer's "no weapons" policy would constitute effective notice to an employee with a CHL, even with the absence of 30.06 signage. Is this correct? I've heard it argued that without the 30.06, a CHL holder carrying at their place of employment (with such a policy) it is merely a violation of company policy (and therefore you risk being fired if discovered), but not illegally trespassing. I believe, reluctantly, that the policy would prohibit employees (but not visitors!) from carrying concealed with a CHL.

Comments?

[dws1117]

With a written company policy employees have been given notice. Visitors have been given no such notice unless posted.

[Andiceman]

Thanks. That's what I thought.

[Paladin]

I was thinking that verbal notice or 30.06 was required? Could be wrong

[stevie_d_64]

I agree from a standpoint of it being a personal choice to carry or not carry to and from work...How you conduct yourself while "on the clock" is a personal matter...

Per a company "policy" of course...

My opinion is well documented as far as how I feel and have conducted myself per a "company policy"...

Company policies are not law, but the risks are of course the drastic matter of termination of employment if caught...

I will not tell someone what to do in this regard...I'm only relating what my experience has been in response to these "policies"...

Now of course if the building is properly posted in Texas with that dreaded 30.06 sign, then yes, you better follow the law on that one...

If I have a way to secure my weapon in the vehicle, within a lockbox in that vehicle, then most likely it'll stay there...In the parking facility or lot...I consider that to be acceptable...

Bottom line is that I am not going to advertise my views or hint to what I do in regards to firearms to anyone I work with...It keeps the rumors and your capability discrete to anyone who may want to conduct a company "fishing expedition/search"...

This is just how I feel about this issue...I'm just lucky now to work with a friend who I respect as a good business partner, and have the same views on issues...Whom I have know for years before working with him...He knows how I feel about this, and its not that big a deal to him either...

If I went somewhere else, then I am prepared to evaluate the situation, adjust my carry procedures, and make it work...

Just some things to ponder I suppose...

[Charles L. Cotton]

Andiceman:

Welcome to the forum.

Verbal notice of a "no weapons" policy, regardless of the words used, will suffice to make Penal Code Section 30.06 effective against a CHL. However, if the "no weapons" policy is communicated only in writing, such as a provision in a Employee Handbook or Policy Manual, then the wording has to be identical to that required for a 30.06 sign.

Regards,
Chas.

Here are the relevant code sections:

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to
act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.

[Andiceman]

After reading that section (which I'll admit I hadn't done in quite awhile), it appears to me then that if the subject has not come up verbally, and only communicated in a written employment policy (via employee handbook, wording NOT in accordance with 30.06), an employee should be fine within the law to carry with a CHL. However, that employee would place their employment status at risk (if discovered) due to violating company policy.

[Charles L. Cotton]

After reading that section (which I'll admit I hadn't done in quite awhile), it appears to me then that if the subject has not come up verbally, and only communicated in a written employment policy (via employee handbook, wording NOT in accordance with 30.06), an employee should be fine within the law to carry with a CHL. However, that employee would place their employment status at risk (if discovered) due to violating company policy.

I agree.

Chas.

[dws1117]

Verbal notice of a "no weapons" policy, regardless of the words used, will suffice to make Penal Code Section 30.06 effective against a CHL. However, if the "no weapons" policy is communicated only in writing, such as a provision in a Employee Handbook or Policy Manual, then the wording has to be identical to that required for a 30.06 sign.

Thanks for correcting me, Charles.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Verbal notice of a "no weapons" policy, regardless of the words used, will suffice to make Penal Code Section 30.06 effective against a CHL. However, if the "no weapons" policy is communicated only in writing, such as a provision in a Employee Handbook or Policy Manual, then the wording has to be identical to that required for a 30.06 sign.

Thanks for correcting me, Charles.

This is a very common misconception. We talk so much about a 30.06 "sign" that most people relate the required language only to the sign. Ironically, the required language actually addresses "a card or other document" and the sign provision adopts the same language.

Regards,
Chas.

[KBCraig]

It's worth remembering that 30.06 applies to criminal trespass. If your employer wants to search your vehicle, you should just leave. If they fire you for leaving, or fire you for having a firearm in the car, the end is the same: you're fired.

The difference is, you're at no risk of a criminal trespass charge if you leave.

A federal appeals court overturned the firing of a Bureau of Prisons employee who refused to allow his car to be searched. The circumstances are slightly different, mostly because it was a law enforcement agency acting on insufficient evidence, so it became a 4th Ammendment issue.

The case is Wiley v. Department of Justice, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 02-3044, May 12, 2003

I believe Wiley erred in returning to work and letting his vehicle be searched. The use of sick leave is well established as a legal right of the employee. If such a situation happened to me, I'd inform them that I was sick, and going home. And I also happen to work for the BOP.

Kevin

[stevie_d_64]

I suppose I am just a bad person...

[stevie_d_64]

Its a poorly written account of the incident today, but I figure it illustrates a reason to...

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5346972/detail.html

"arm(ed)"?

Looks like they need a schpeel-checker at that TV station...

[night4creeper]

what could they charge the owner with? it was his property, so there should be no issues in being armed there. the other guy obviously threatened the owners life so therefore the owner was in fear of his own life, so that should be the end of it. its not the other way around, the owner didn't go hunt the guy down..