Employee Handbook Weapons Question

[seamusTX]

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

I did not know that. Thanks.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

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

I did not know that. Thanks.

- Jim

You are welcome. Clubs are defined in 46.01, in case you wish to show someone or just read the definition.

[seamusTX]

Clubs are defined in 46.01, in case you wish to show someone or just read the definition.

I knew that, but there's endless debate about whether baseball bats, flashlights, etc., are clubs.

It seems subjective to me. I don't carry such things in any case.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

Clubs are defined in 46.01, in case you wish to show someone or just read the definition.

I knew that, but there's endless debate about whether baseball bats, flashlights, etc., are clubs.

It seems subjective to me. I don't carry such things in any case.

- Jim

Only debate is between people who don't either know the law, or just try to complicate things.

A baseball bat is not designed, made or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with the instrument. Neither is a flashlight. If you saw the end off of the bat, drill it out and fill it with lead, then tape the handle, you have "adapted" it to be a club.

Some people say that if you hit a person with a bat, you have a adapted it. It is moot, as hitting a person with a bat is aggravated assault, a felony. Carrying a club is a misdemeanor.

All of that other rhetoric is just that.

[Liberty]

Only debate is between people who don't either know the law, or just try to complicate things.

A baseball bat is not designed, made or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with the instrument. Neither is a flashlight. If you saw the end off of the bat, drill it out and fill it with lead, then tape the handle, you have "adapted" it to be a club.

Some people say that if you hit a person with a bat, you have a adapted it. It is moot, as hitting a person with a bat is aggravated assault, a felony. Carrying a club is a misdemeanor.

All of that other rhetoric is just that.

I believe that swinging a bat at someone who is an immediate threat to your life or threatens major injuries is a legal defense to using said baseball bat.

[txinvestigator]

Only debate is between people who don't either know the law, or just try to complicate things.

A baseball bat is not designed, made or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with the instrument. Neither is a flashlight. If you saw the end off of the bat, drill it out and fill it with lead, then tape the handle, you have "adapted" it to be a club.

Some people say that if you hit a person with a bat, you have a adapted it. It is moot, as hitting a person with a bat is aggravated assault, a felony. Carrying a club is a misdemeanor.

All of that other rhetoric is just that.

I believe that swinging a bat at someone who is an immediate threat to your life or threatens major injuries is a legal defense to using said baseball bat.

Of course. My point was about the bat's status as a club.

[Kyle Brown]

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

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

Chas.

Charles, you may remember that you and I have exchanged PMs in regard to this issue in the recent past.

I have two concerns: (1) The concept that one cannot be charged with trespass under 30.06 because the manual does not comply with the express requirements of said statute for providing effective notice in writing to the license holder is at best a legal opinion. However, most here have come to believe this position is "the law." I believe that is a big mistake. (2) My position stated in (1) aside, most who read 30.06 give little or no recognition to the the very first words of 30.06 which states in part "carries a handgun under the authority of .... on property of another without effectivie concent; and...." Clearly, one is in violation if one has not received effective concent to carry a handgun on the property and has received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden; or....

I understand that under your position any written communication must conform to the exact wording provided. IMO, that position is somewhat weakened when you consider that the statute provides for oral or written communication but does not require exact wording when notice is given through oral communication.

So, lets say Mr. President calls all of his 100 employees into a room and says he understands that there has been confusion in regard to the company's position with respect to employees carrying concealed handguns while at work. He then says, "Let me make this perfectly clear. Employees are forbiden to carry concealed handguns while they are at work."

Have the employees been given effective notice to not carry concealed handguns while at work? If an employee subsequently is caught carrying a concealed handgun while at work, can the company file a criminal complaint?

[Charles L. Cotton]

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

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

Chas.

. . .

I have two concerns: (1) The concept that one cannot be charged with trespass under 30.06 because the manual does not comply with the express requirements of said statute for providing effective notice in writing to the license holder is at best a legal opinion.

I disagree; TPC §30.06 is very specific as to the requirements for barring a CHL. A property owner must meet two requirements. They must 1) not give effective consent to enter with a handgun; and 2) they must also give notice that guns are forbidden on the property. If they choose to give a verbal warning, then no specific language is required. If they choose to give a written warning, it must contain the exact language required in TPC §30.06(c)(3)(A). If the written notice is going to be put on a sign, rather than a card handed to people, or on an employer policy manual, then the sign must also meet the size and configuration requirements of TPC §30.06(c)(A)&(B).

[(2) My position stated in (1) aside, most who read 30.06 give little or no recognition to the the very first words of 30.06 which states in part "carries a handgun under the authority of .... on property of another without effective consent; and...." Clearly, one is in violation if one has not received effective consent to carry a handgun on the property and has received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden; or....

I agree. But as noted above, TPC §30.06 is very precise as to how "effective notice" must be given. Any writing that does not meet the express language requirements of TPC §30.06(c)(3)(A) does not meet the statutory requirements, thus it cannot be the basis of a prosecution. Note the following unique language in §30.06(c)(3)(A):

"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";

When the Legislature used the term "identical" it removed any discretion or latitude as to how written notice can be communicated.

I understand that under your position any written communication must conform to the exact wording provided. IMO, that position is somewhat weakened when you consider that the statute provides for oral or written communication but does not require exact wording when notice is given through oral communication.

Having the option to give a verbal warning does not change the requirements for giving notice in writing. When a prosecutor is deciding if a chargeable offense has occurred, he first looks to the statute to determine the elements of the crime. He then looks to the facts of the case to see if he has evidence on each of the required elements. With TPC §30.06, the first question is going to be "how was the CHL given effective notice?" If the answer is "in writing" then the very next question is "did the writing meet the requirements of TPC §30.06(c)(3)(A)?" If not, then no crime has been committed

[So, lets say Mr. President calls all of his 100 employees into a room and says he understands that there has been confusion in regard to the company's position with respect to employees carrying concealed handguns while at work. He then says, "Let me make this perfectly clear. Employees are forbidden to carry concealed handguns while they are at work."

Have the employees been given effective notice to not carry concealed handguns while at work? If an employee subsequently is caught carrying a concealed handgun while at work, can the company file a criminal complaint?

Yes, notice was given as provided in 30.06 and the employee can be prosecuted. Something else to be considered is that the verbal notice doesn't have to be that formal. Even a casual comment by someone in apparent authority to the effect that no guns are allowed is sufficient notice.

Chas.

[Kyle Brown]

Charles, sorry for the delay in responding.

Are you saying that "identical to" as in the wording of the statute, and "the exact language required" as in your response to me, have the same legal interpretation?

As I understand it, "identical to" means having such close resemblance as to be essentially the same. "Exact" would be verbatim as in the exact words or "word for word."

[Renegade]

While you guys debate the finer meaning of these definitions, having just come off jury duty (not selected), it would be my opinion the jurors selected will reduce the logic to:A) did he have a gun YES B) was he told not to bring it to work? YES. C) GUILTY.

[HankB]

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".

IANAL, but in the absence of an explicit definition of "proper authorization" in the employee handbook, it seems to me that a compelling argument can be made that an official license issued by the government of the State of Texas can reasonably be regarded as "proper authorization."

Of course, in Texas employers can fire people pretty easily, but I believe successful criminal prosecution would be difficult in the absence of a more explicit prohibition.

(There may be some legal expenses involved in proving this in court.)

[Liberty]

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".

IANAL, but in the absence of an explicit definition of "proper authorization" in the employee handbook, it seems to me that a compelling argument can be made that an official license issued by the government of the State of Texas can reasonably be regarded as "proper authorization."

Of course, in Texas employers can fire people pretty easily, but I believe successful criminal prosecution would be difficult in the absence of a more explicit prohibition.

(There may be some legal expenses involved in proving this in court.)

I would read it as authorization from the company.

But thats just me. IANAL