Employee Handbook Weapons Question

player_twister · Post by **player_twister** » Wed May 02, 2007 10:51 am

My Employee handbook states "Firearms, Weapons, and other dangerous or hazardous devices or substances are prohibited for the premises of (name of company) without proper authorization".

I don't plan on carring to work, but I do lock my weapon in the company parking lot. I guess it's the "without proper authorization" that bothers me. And I don't want to ask, because this will bring up a Red Flag.

Just wondering what your thoughts are, and would you leave your weapon at home?

nitrogen · Post by **nitrogen** » Wed May 02, 2007 10:56 am

Unless the area is posted with a valid 30.06, you cannot be liable criminally for tresspass by CHL Holder. The worst they can do is discipline or fire you.

Lock it up tight and don't tell anyone, and you'll be fine.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Wed May 02, 2007 11:06 am

I will give a very lawyer-like response, so bear with me.

1. You have notice that your employer doesn't want guns somewhere in their property. You don't know what they consider to be the "premises," so you donâ€™t know precisely the bounds of the off-limits areas. It could be just the building, or it could be the entire real estate they either own or control.

Your employer can fire you for violating that policy, or for virtually any reason whatsoever, so the employee manual probably doesn't mean much when it comes to termination. It would provide a defense to you seeking unemployment compensation, because you would have been fired "for cause."

2. The language in the policy manual does not comply with the express requirements of TPC Â§30.06 for providing effective notice in writing to a CHL holder, so you cannot be charged with trespass under 30.06 and TPC Â§30.05 cannot be used based solely upon possession of a firearm.

DPS is ambiguous in it's CHL instructor course and in the CHL student course and test as to the effect of a written "no guns" warning that does not meet the requirements of TPC Â§30.06. It is unclear if they are saying a non-compliant sign can be the basis of a prosecution. If that is what they intend, then DPS is dead wrong. DPS may be implying that the employer can use a non-compliant sign to terminate you for cause, which is correct, but the sign is not necessary to fire you.

Chas.

player_twister · Post by **player_twister** » Wed May 02, 2007 11:20 am

I was concerned about the "without proper authorization". Could it be authorization by the Company, or Legal Authorizataion (CHL) for example?

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Wed May 02, 2007 11:22 am

Without being a mind-reader, I would bet they mean authorization by the company.

Of companies that have weapons policies, 99% of them do not want CHLs to carry on company property. I'm aware of only one that does (Southwest Airlines).

- Jim

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Wed May 02, 2007 11:40 am

I believe Southwest Airlines has made a good faith "preemptive" step in recognizing that they cannot protect their employees off-grounds and off the clock...

So they allow the locked storage of firearms while their employees that do carry for lawful purposes while on the clock...

Something about that makes me feel pretty good about their intentions...

All of this, before that bill that is suppose to cover us with all employers in the parking lots has made it to a vote this session...Plus a provision of notification in that bill gives the employer the ability to account for all of its employees that do carry...

I have had some reservations about that provision and its intent, dispite the SWA policy and its intent...

But thats beside the point...

I believe there are a lot of interesting and positive things going on legislatively this session and for the most part its been positive...

Charles...I really like that summation...good stuff!!!

(like my opinion matters a hill of beans...

)

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Wed May 02, 2007 1:54 pm

The HRM worry-worts and liability lawyers should relax and make a simple change to their personnel manuals: "The illegal possession of firearms or other weapons is prohibited." That solves their liability worries while silently allowing legal carry. No need to expressly allow the latter while banning the former.

Kevin

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Wed May 02, 2007 2:34 pm

KBCraig wrote:"The illegal possession of firearms or other weapons is prohibited."

It's not illegal to have a rifle or shotgun in your car or carry it around, except in the places weapons prohibited. Employers don't want that. They also don't want knives or martial arts weapons.

- Jim

player_twister · Post by **player_twister** » Wed May 02, 2007 3:06 pm

KBCraig wrote:The HRM worry-worts and liability lawyers should relax and make a simple change to their personnel manuals: "The illegal possession of firearms or other weapons is prohibited." That solves their liability worries while silently allowing legal carry. No need to expressly allow the latter while banning the former.

Kevin

Now That makes sense. That puts it into perspective, even I can understand.

RPBrown · Post by **RPBrown** » Wed May 02, 2007 3:37 pm

Our policy manual states unlicensed possession prohibited.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Wed May 02, 2007 3:50 pm

seamusTX wrote:
KBCraig wrote:"The illegal possession of firearms or other weapons is prohibited."
It's not illegal to have a rifle or shotgun in your car or carry it around, except in the places weapons prohibited. Employers don't want that.

Exactly. And prohibiting "illegal" (or even better, "unlicensed") possession gets them off that hook.

They also don't want knives or martial arts weapons.

Then forbid "illegal knives" and "unlawful carry of weapons". Same result.

Kevin

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:12 pm

RPBrown wrote:Our policy manual states unlicensed possession prohibited.

That's interesting and unusual. Lucky you.

KBCraig wrote:Exactly. And prohibiting "illegal" (or even better, "unlicensed") possession gets them off that hook.

I'm not sure I got my point across.

Employers want no weapons in the workplace. I've heard of people being fired for having martial arts weapons, which are not illegal in Texas.

Referring to "unlicensed possession" of long guns and knives is meaningless under Texas law, since we have no such thing as a license for those weapons.

If they want to say only CHL holders can have handguns (which they don't, anyway), I think they need to say that explicitly.

- Jim

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:24 pm

seamusTX wrote:
RPBrown wrote:Our policy manual states unlicensed possession prohibited.
That's interesting and unusual. Lucky you.
KBCraig wrote:Exactly. And prohibiting "illegal" (or even better, "unlicensed") possession gets them off that hook.
I'm not sure I got my point across.

Employers want no weapons in the workplace. I've heard of people being fired for having martial arts weapons, which are not illegal in Texas.

Most of them are.

Referring to "unlicensed possession" of long guns and knives is meaningless under Texas law, since we have no such thing as a license for those weapons.

No, it means that long guns and knives are not against policy in those cases.

If they want to say only CHL holders can have handguns (which they don't, anyway), I think they need to say that explicitly.

- Jim

Disagree. It does not matter what I think they mean, it matters what they wrote.

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Wed May 02, 2007 5:33 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
seamusTX wrote:I've heard of people being fired for having martial arts weapons, which are not illegal in Texas.
Most of them are.

I was thinking specifically about nunchucks (two sticks with a piece of chain between them). Are they illegal in Texas?

On the rest of the points, I am continually failing to get my point across. It's all hypothetical anyway. No company that does not already allow CHL carry is going to change its policy to allow it. (Maybe if the sole proprietor gets mugged, but I doubt it.)

- Jim

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Wed May 02, 2007 6:13 pm

seamusTX wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
seamusTX wrote:I've heard of people being fired for having martial arts weapons, which are not illegal in Texas.
Most of them are.
I was thinking specifically about nunchucks (two sticks with a piece of chain between them). Are they illegal in Texas?

Nun chucks, or NunChuks?

Actually nunchucks, or Sshang Jeol Bong, as we called them in Taekwondo, are clubs by Texas definition, and illegal to carry on or about your person under TPC 46.02