Half-life of an oral 30.06 notification

[Keith B]

This is my opinion only: If the person who gave you oral notice had the authority to give it at the time they were there, then you have been given a valid notification and it is in affect until someone higher or now in authority rescinds the notification.

And that's the kind of overly broad interpretation of the statute that concerns me. Not saying you're wrong, your opinion is quite valid. Just concerns me that a one-time one-sentence notice could effectively disarm you for near-eternity in a particular premises.

I guess I hope that rather than the "someone higher or now in authority" having to specifically rescind the previous notification, that merely the change in authority would force the new authority to have to restate the 30.06 notice. I especially think this applies with actual change in the business or management (not just one person leaving, but the whole entity changing). Otherwise, it seems an unfair burden on me as a new business owner or new manager if I have to specifically rescind a notification given by a previous owner/manager that I may not even be aware of.

Remember, one of the most important reasons for the change in the law that now forces hospitals, churches etc to post 30.06 instead of being off-limits by statute is the owners/managers of such facilities who claimed that making those entities statutorily off-limits was removing their choice to run their premises how they see fit.

To take my logic a step further, let's say the previous owner of my home orally told everyone who entered "no guns allowed", by your interpretation as the new owner of this home I would have to specifically tell each of those people "go ahead and carry your guns again". That seems quite a burden on me as the new owner.

I will continue to play on these. Again, these are my opinions only and IANAL (Needed to get that in there ) See my post above about it being like a 30.06 sign. If a business is still the same business it was when you were given notice, then IMO it stays in effect until the business changes hands, it becomes a different business, or the notice is rescinded by a person in charge. Kinda like the sign has been put up and now stays there until the old owner took it with them when they moved or the new owner took it down when remodeling.

For the home, until that home sells to a new owner, then the notification stays.

[A-R]

I will continue to play on these. Again, these are my opinions only and IANAL (Needed to get that in there ) See my post above about it being like a 30.06 sign. If a business is still the same business it was when you were given notice, then IMO it stays in effect until the business changes hands, it becomes a different business, or the notice is rescinded by a person in charge. Kinda like the sign has been put up and now stays there until the old owner took it with them when they moved or the new owner took it down when remodeling.

For the home, until that home sells to a new owner, then the notification stays.

Keith, I like your revised interpretation better. Now if we can just get SCOTUS to hurry up with revising some of its old interpretations

Only thing I'd still prefer is that even if it's the same entity, if the highest-ranking person in the local authority of that entity (e.g. they have one local Austin office and the branch manager of that office leaves) then I think the 30.06 oral notice should leave with him. Examples:

1. The branch manager of ABC Widget Resellers' one and only Austin location leaves for another company, the new manager should have to restate the oral 30.06 notice.

2. The pastor of ABC Church of the Devout Busybodies leaves and the congregation hires a new pastor. The new pastor should have to restate any oral 30.06 notice the old pastor made. Of course, if notification came from the church's office manager or someone else who's still there, then that's different. You would still need rescinsion.

Basically, I think once the person who gave the notice leaves, the new person who takes over that position should have to restate the 30.06 notice.

For that matter, if any pastor of any large denomination gives an oral 30.06 does that apply only to that church while that pastor is there? Does it apply to all churches in that denomination? Does it apply only to the 11 am service or if I get up early can I carry to the 8:30? ..... reminds me of one of my favorite jokes of all time:

Little Billy is at church staring at the names on a plaque on the wall. The pastor walks by and asks Billy if he can help him. Little Billy says "yes sir, I was wondering why are all those names on the wall?" The pastor says "Well son, we put those names on the wall to honor all of the brave men and women of this congregation who died in the service."

Little Billy gets a terrified look on his face and meekly asks ... "the 8:30 or the 11 o'clock?"

[jimlongley]

1. The branch manager of ABC Widget Resellers' one and only Austin location leaves for another company, the new manager should have to restate the oral 30.06 notice.

The problem there being that it may have been that the branch manager may have been stating corporate policy, in which case the restriction still applies no matter what the branch manager's employment status.

If, as in your first scenario, he has been transferred to home office in Poughkeepsie, then he obviously works for IBM. IBM's employee parking lots are all badge access, and IBM's corporate policy (stated in ALL employee manuals) is no "weapons" on company property, without regard for state laws to the contrary. You, fearing for safety, and knowing that while the parking lots are badge access, they are not fenced and controlled/patrolled, have decided to chance carrying concealed in your car because your state, wisely, has passed a parking lot carry bill and you know you are not doing anything otherwise illegal and you think you might win a suit or at least can take getting fired.

When the boss told you this it was not directly in reference to you, but stated in generic terms; "Company policy forbids carrying of concealed handguns on company property even by those licensed under state law." during a meeting.

And now he's gone.

The restriction still holds, carrying is trespass, and an arrestable offense.

-----------------------

So here's an alternative scenario:

Doesn't everyone just love these, we can shave them finer and finer every iteration, which is why it would help to get the language clarified.

You work for Home Depot. HD's company policy, clearly stated in the employee manual, says "No Weapons" on company property except where state law overrides, such as a state with a parking lot law but during a conversation with a fellow employee you reveal that you are a CHL holder, and the other employee is also, but a third employee overhears, and this one, quasi-religiously, is of the opinion that all who own guns are the devils' spawn and goes whimpering and moaning to the boss. The boss comes to you and says "I had better not find out that you are carrying a concealed handgun on the property, at any time, or I will have you arrested for trespass under the CHL statute." The employee manual only provides for termination with no criminal charges.

Two branches here:

1) The state does not have a parking lot law; Is this 30.06 notice really enough to have you arrested, or is he merely parphrasing company policy? And collaterally; Does his notice survive his tenure?

2) The state has a parking lot law; Is the notice valid at all, and if it is valid, does it remain in effect after he leaves?

[A-R]

Jim, great post with a lot of worthwhile information. Is IBM's corporate headquarters actually in Poughkeepsie? I seriously had no idea and didn't intend that to be a subtle hint at IBM. I think the phrase "home office in Poughkeepsie" or something similar is just vernacular I picked up somewhere along the way.

Anyway, I agree that in your scenario when the company has made an attempt to limit guns in an employee manual and the supervisor specifically says "company policy says no guns" then yes I - as an intellegent adult whose mind has never been warped by years spent at law school and in court rooms - would understand that to mean that no matter which oxygen-breathing two-legged individual is in charge at the local office at the time I am prohibited from carry (I'd also be looking for another job ASAP, but that's a different discussion).

But in my original scenario the boss just said "you can't carry at work" he didn't say "corporate policy states..." or in any way hint that this was an edict from above his pay grade. Could it be implied that it was an edict from on high? Sure. Could it also be implied that it was just his policy for that office? Absolustely.

Which gets us back to where I think we ALL agree ... the 30.06 statute, while very detailed, is too vague in certain areas, specifically as relates to oral notification.

I wish 30.06 could be clarified to basically say "if you (mr/mrs business owner) want to prohibit licensed CHL on your premises and wish the tax-payer funded law enforcement community to back you up on this decision with the threat of arrest under trespassing laws, then you MUST post the full-size valid 30.06 SIGN at all entrances to your premises . You may also give oral notification that CHL is prohibited, and if the person does not immediately leave and/or store his gun outside your premises then we will charge them with trespass. However, we as law enforcement, are not going to referee a he said/she said argument over when or if oral notification was given and nor when that notification expires. If you want to prohibit CHL in perpetuity, then again you MUST post the proper valid 30.06 signage at ALL entrances.

Furthermore (and this is something I seriously believe we need to push for VERY HARD in next legislature as it goes well beyond merely a "parking lot law") a citizen's motor vehicle is an extension of his home. A citizen may possess any legal object within the confines of his motor vehicle and when walking directly to/from his motor vehicle. No entity of any kind (public or private) holding any land of any type under any ownership or lease arrangement within the recognized borders of the state of Texas may in any way prohibit a lawful citizen from possessing lawful items inside a motor vehicle under the lawful citizen's control, regardless of where the motor vehicle is located, and irrespective of any contracts, agreements, edicts, mandates etc. Furthermore no permission regarding limited access to land, property, or premises of any kind for the purposes of driving or parking a motor vehicle may be conditioned upon what legal items a citizen possess within the motor vehicle. (basically if you allow cars of any kind, you cannot in any way limiti or prohibit what is inside those cars).

The above (after proper re-wording by our friendly lawyers) should effectively outlaw employee parking lot rules and the posting of any 30.06 notices on parking garage, parking lots, etc.

Basically if it's legal and it's inside my motor vehicle, you can't do anything about it.

[Keith B]

Two branches here:

1) The state does not have a parking lot law; Is this 30.06 notice really enough to have you arrested, or is he merely parphrasing company policy? And collaterally; Does his notice survive his tenure?

2) The state has a parking lot law; Is the notice valid at all, and if it is valid, does it remain in effect after he leaves?

Here are my views:

1. Yes, it is valid notice since the statute states you just have to be orally notified, and no specific wording. Any oral notification from someone with the credentials to tell you this (like a store manager or your boss) justifies legal notification.

2. Depending on how the parking lot law is written, it is probably not valid. Every one I have read from other states prohibit the employer from banning you from having it in your car in the parking lot. However, depending on how he stated this, it might constitute oral notification for carrying in the store, even if it wasn't valid for the parking lot.

[bdickens]

"I don't remember anyone saying something about that to me."

[A-R]

"I don't remember anyone saying something about that to me."

Wouldn't work. Only politicians are allowed to use the "i don't remember" defense ... unless you're a closet politician and you've been keeping it a secret from us for all this time

[jimlongley]

"I don't remember anyone saying something about that to me."

Amen, and bosses get to say "I distincly remember saying that CHL was prohibited."

Actually IBM HQ is NOT in Poughkeepsie, but about half of the residents of the area are beemers. My son in law is a VP with IBM and lives near there too.

My other son in law used to work at IBM and told us once that "IBM" stood for "I've Been Moved" and that "going to home office in Poughkeepsie" was internal code for either transferring to HQ, or being called up on the carpet by the really high brass. He went to home office twice.

Basically if it's legal and it's inside my motor vehicle, you can't do anything about it.

And that is just about the way I would like the law to say it. "The State of Texas, recognizing the fact that a person's vehicle is an extension of their home, the right to personal property in that vehicle shall not be infringed, any time, any place, nowhere's, by nobody." Or something like that.

[bdickens]

The OP wasn't talking about internal corporate policies.

[jmra]

"I don't remember anyone saying something about that to me."

I think with oral notification (ON) there are two different issues;

1. Legally binding - unless the ON was given in a room full of people or was in some other manner documented, legally it would become a he said/she said situation that I doubt would ever be acted on by authorities. IANALE (I am not a legal expert).
2. Morally binding - If I was given ON, morally I would abide by that ON until it was obvious that it no longer applied. Let's say I didn't work at a school and my boss gave me ON. He later left the company and a new boss replaced him. Morally I think I would request clarification prior to CCing at work again. I know this would violate don't ask don't tell but at least I would know where management stood on the issue.

[sjfcontrol]

Basically if it's legal and it's inside my motor vehicle, you can't do anything about it.

But... But... But... But then what would they do with all those legally-possessed firearms in School parking lots??? They wouldn't be able to apply their "Zero Intelligence", (oops, I mean "Zero Tolerance") rulesets anymore.

[Venus Pax]

I would think if the business changed owners, then the oral notification would need to be reissued. A major exception would be if the same manager were there that gave the notification in the first place.
If it were a manager and he/she leaves, then I wouldn't worry about it, but IANAL.