Employer policy opinion

308nato · Post by **308nato** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:34 pm

I sold knives for a few years until it seemed everyone was getting in the
business.
My wife printed the state laws about knives off the computer for texas
and we kept them with us everywhere we went to sell in case any
LEOs had any doubts about the legality of selling switch blades and
butterfly knives to collectors and such.
I will try to find that site and post it if needed.
If I remember the only people who can carry them on their person is
a handycap person , LEOS ,and active military .

TxFire · Post by **TxFire** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:28 am

I must add a disclaimer that this policy/directive may or may not be associated with an entity that I am employed by or otherwise involved with in any way.

casselthief, I see no reason I should be restricted by a policy to not be able to carry at work if I so choose to. My particular line of work brings me in direct contact at times with persons that either through their own evil will, drug induced anger, or alcohol usage may want to harm persons in uniform regardless of affiliation or intentions. That just might be all the MORE reason I SHOULD be allowed to carry with a CHL.

As far as knives, I would also love to be able to LEGALLY carry an automatic knife. I carried one for years while on duty

as they are very handy when one hand is busy and you need a knife NOW. But I lost it and chose not to replace it.

flintknapper · Post by **flintknapper** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:12 am

TxFire wrote:As far as knives, I would also love to be able to LEGALLY carry an automatic knife. I carried one for years while on duty as they are very handy when one hand is busy and you need a knife NOW. But I lost it and chose not to replace it.

As you are probably aware, some of the "assisted opening" knives compare favorably with the automatics in terms of ease and swiftness of opening.

I carry a Randall King Phantom Reflex... it deploys using just one hand very quickly and reliably. Something along those lines might serve you well.

http://www.knifeoutlet.com/shop/catalog/6766.htm

TxFire · Post by **TxFire** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:51 am

Yeah I have considered one of that sort also. I REALLY loved that Benchmade auto. I miss it dearly.

kanders · Post by **kanders** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:12 pm

Back to the original question, the statement is very poorly worded, but I interpret it thusly:

No employee, while on duty, is allowed to clean, carry, utilize, or possess any type of firearm and/or other prohibited weapons

(including but not limited to:
switchblade knives, boot knives, or double edged knives in violation of local, state or federal law)

excepting the specific circumstances outlined below:

... which means you're not allowed to carry any type of firearm or illegal knife, except in whatever the specific circumstances are that are outline below.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a pretty good writer and reader.

TxFire · Post by **TxFire** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:58 pm

Kanders,
So your interpretation is that an employee may NOT clean, carry, utilize, or possess a firearm or prohibited knife even if that employee is NOT in violation of local, state or federal law?

kanders · Post by **kanders** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:55 pm

Yes, but like I said, I think the wording of it and lack of punctuation is open to two different interpretations. Either they don't want any/all of the weapons mentioned, including other illegal knives not specifically stated, or they will allow any/all weapons specifically mentioned as long as something (you? the weapon?) is not in violation of the laws. Pretty vague, huh?

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:09 pm

kanders wrote:Yes, but like I said, I think the wording of it and lack of punctuation is open to two different interpretations. Either they don't want any/all of the weapons mentioned, including other illegal knives not specifically stated, or they will allow any/all weapons specifically mentioned as long as something (you? the weapon?) is not in violation of the laws. Pretty vague, huh?

Its reads to me that as long as the weapon is not in violation of local, state or federal law thenit is OK to have.

TxFire · Post by **TxFire** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:40 pm

My interpretation is with TxI's and was so prior to this discussion. But I do believe that it has been interpretted by some in this particular company to go with Kander's thoughts. In others words, what it actually says and what the "powers that be" believe it says are two different things.

I found it to be an interesting way of wording the policy and wanted to see how others might read it. I appreciate everyones responses.