TexasCHLforum.com

propellerhead wrote:If you're talking about Lockheed-Martin in Fort Worth, forget it. It's considered federal property.

Does "Air Force Plant #4" ring a bell? I'm guessing it's still called that

I really don't want a parking lot bill, per se. I would like to see "your vehicle is an extension of your home" law instead. I believe this is the best balance of 2nd amendment and property rights. Basically, it is not a criminal offense to keep a firearm in your vehicle in anyplace (other than polling places, prisons, etc, already off limits) open to the public.

I absolutely agree any private property owner should have the right to forbid firearms on your person on their property for any reason except official law enforcement (probable cause, warrant, etc.). I also don't think it is unreasonable for businesses open to the public (and I don't know how you define that yet) to not be able to forbid carry in an 'extension of your home', i.e., your car.

Thoughts? Is this a good balance of rights?? I don't think this should apply to private property not open to the public (your home, business NOT open to the public, etc.). The definition of open to the public is still to be defined. I don't know completely what I think on that yet

An employer (more or less) has the right to make your CHL invalid at work. If you will read the right to carry under GC CH 411.203 Rights of Employers...it specifically states they have the right to DENY your ability to carry on their property! This includes their parking lot. This also means they DO NOT have to post a 30.06 sign for EMPLOYEES only for non-employees.

ctxpta wrote:An employer (more or less) has the right to make your CHL invalid at work. If you will read the right to carry under GC CH 411.203 Rights of Employers...it specifically states they have the right to DENY your ability to carry on their property! This includes their parking lot. This also means they DO NOT have to post a 30.06 sign for EMPLOYEES only for non-employees.

They cannot render your CHL invalid. The only two things an employer can do is make it policy for no CHL carry and fire you if you carry OR give effective notice via 30.06 requirements and fire you and/or have you arrested if you carry. They absolutely do have to post 30.06 (or other effective notice under 30.06) or it is not a crime, but a violation of company policy. No different than no alcohol, no smoking, etc.

GrillKing wrote:The only two things an employer can do.....

Actually, the third thing is to allow CHL carry, either by omission of policy or effective notice or by explicitly allowing said carry.

Invalid is a poor choice. Your CHL is still valid everywhere else. If an employer tells you by ANY means that you can not carry at work then a person carrying concealed could be charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon under PC 46.02. With the changing of the wording there is an argument that if it is left in your vehicle then there is no crime.

ctxpta wrote:Invalid is a poor choice. Your CHL is still valid everywhere else. If an employer tells you by ANY means that you can not carry at work then a person carrying concealed could be charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon under PC 46.02. With the changing of the wording there is an argument that if it is left in your vehicle then there is no crime.

I respectfully disagree. If they tell you (orally) then, yes you have been given effective notice and must leave or be guilty of tresspass (I don't think you would be charged with UCW). If they do not tell you orally or do not meet the written requirements of PC 30.06, no crime has been committed, regardless of what else may be in the employee manual or posted on the property. It either meets the requirements of PC30.06 or it doesn't. In that case that it does not meet the requirements, you have violated company policy and can be fired, but have not committed a crime.

GC 411.203 says the employer can prohibit firearms. PC 30.06 tells them how to do it. For criminal tresspass by a CHL holder, the same requirements apply, whether employee or not. The only difference is you can't fire a non-employee!

ctxpta wrote:If an employer tells you by ANY means that you can not carry at work then a person carrying concealed could be charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon under PC 46.02.

You are incorrect.

For starters, violating a 30.06 notice is not UCW under PC 46.02. It is a violation of PC 30.06 itself, "Trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun".

Second, there is no exemption for employers. Employers must give the same 30.06 notice as anyone else in order for it to constitute effective notice.

We will continue to disagree on this. Because it states in the GC CH 411.203 this subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed...it does not say that they have to post the 30.06....which again to me because every where else it specifically says that the 30.06 MUST be posted...why not here? I firmly believe you are not validly carrying with a CHL on their property if they have told you you can't as an employee. If you are not validly carrying then you are in violation 46.02.

My reasoning starts by saying you have no right with a CHL to carry on an employers property since they tell you specifically an employer has the right to tell you no. That being said 30.06 does not apply with OR without a sign.

Like was said before...we will continue to disagree. You say a CHL has more power than the employer and I say the employer has more right than the CHL for its employees.

ctxpta wrote:We will continue to disagree on this. Because it states in the GC CH 411.203 this subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed...it does not say that they have to post the 30.06....which again to me because every where else it specifically says that the 30.06 MUST be posted...why not here?

The law doesn't prevent or limit the right of employers to prohibit licensed concealed carry. But (and I think this is where you're stumbling), they have to do so exactly like any other property owner, in order for that prohibition to have any criminal consequences.

I firmly believe you are not validly carrying with a CHL on their property if they have told you you can't as an employee. If you are not validly carrying then you are in violation 46.02.

You've inserted a word of your own there: "validly". Employer policies do not make a CHL invalid at any time or place. If they did, then an employer's rule saying that employees may not possess firearms at any time would "invalidate" the CHL. That's simply not the case. Only DPS can invalidate a CHL; once it is invalid, it is always invalid unless reinstated.

A notice prohibiting concealed handguns doesn't invalidate the CHL, and carrying where you've been told not to is not a violation of 46.02. It is a violation of 30.06, assuming the notice prescribed by 30.06 is given.

My reasoning starts by saying you have no right with a CHL to carry on an employers property since they tell you specifically an employer has the right to tell you no. That being said 30.06 does not apply with OR without a sign.

What the law says is that employers are exactly the same as any other property owners, and are free to ban carry by employees. You've twisted that into some special class of private property owner, but that is not what the law says.

You say a CHL has more power than the employer and I say the employer has more right than the CHL for its employees.

I've said no such thing. I believe an employer has the right to fire you for carrying a gun whether or not they gave any notice, just the same as they have the right to fire you for poor performance, a bad hair day, or because you wore a red shirt to work and the boss likes blue.

What an employer does not have the right to do, is have you criminally prosecuted for carrying a gun, unless they gave the effective notice required by 30.06! This does not invalidate or reduce the employer's rights in any way. Neither does it give the employee any rights over the employer. The language of GC 411.203 was written specifically so that employees could not claim a right to carry against the employer's wishes. That section only serves as a reminder that employers have the same right as any other property owner; they also have the same obligations to give effective notice if they wish to ban concealed carry.

ctxpta wrote:We will continue to disagree on this. Because it states in the GC CH 411.203 this subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed...it does not say that they have to post the 30.06....which again to me because every where else it specifically says that the 30.06 MUST be posted...why not here? I firmly believe you are not validly carrying with a CHL on their property if they have told you you can't as an employee. If you are not validly carrying then you are in violation 46.02.

My reasoning starts by saying you have no right with a CHL to carry on an employers property since they tell you specifically an employer has the right to tell you no. That being said 30.06 does not apply with OR without a sign.

Like was said before...we will continue to disagree. You say a CHL has more power than the employer and I say the employer has more right than the CHL for its employees.

A person cannot be charged under GC 411.203. There are NO elements of a crime and no penalty. A person CAN be charged under TPC 30.06, IF the requirements of 30.06 are met.

CTXPTA,

There is one other point that you are missing that may make a difference in how you see the debate.

The law you reference about the right of employers was written when the original CHL law was written. It was before the legislature added section 30.06 and its specific requirements. The first year (IIRC) that the CHL was passed, the ghostbuster signs were a valid means of banning a CHL. The people were confused over exactly how this applied or what would constitute notice, so the legislature came up with the wording required in 30.06 (actually, required at first with different wording regarding Vernon's Civil Statutes, which is why we still see some of those signs - the wording changes when it was codified into the government code).

Thus, the legislative intent is that the employer has to give you the notice that meets the specific requirements of 30.06 to make it illegal to carry on their property. They can also give a different notice that lets them fire you for violating their policies but would not be valid for prosecution.

srothstein wrote:CTXPTA,

There is one other point that you are missing that may make a difference in how you see the debate.

The law you reference about the right of employers was written when the original CHL law was written. It was before the legislature added section 30.06 and its specific requirements. The first year (IIRC) that the CHL was passed, the ghostbuster signs were a valid means of banning a CHL. The people were confused over exactly how this applied or what would constitute notice, so the legislature came up with the wording required in 30.06 (actually, required at first with different wording regarding Vernon's Civil Statutes, which is why we still see some of those signs - the wording changes when it was codified into the government code).

Thus, the legislative intent is that the employer has to give you the notice that meets the specific requirements of 30.06 to make it illegal to carry on their property. They can also give a different notice that lets them fire you for violating their policies but would not be valid for prosecution.

however, we now have the exact language of the 30.06 postings to serve as a true guideline and not a gray area...
your employer, unless verbal communication or exact 30.06 equivalent has failed to meet the language deemed necessary to forbid the licensed carry of a concealed weapon on their premises...

I have yet to have a job that pays me enough in a few years to earn my life, and have yet to be employed somewhere where there is a replacement "me" and not another job...

Carrying despite "company policy" (unless they took the time and very minimal effort to match the statute) is not illegal... it can cost you your job, but your life when hung on the scales with a job and the remote possibility of them attempting to have charges pressed (equaling a few thousand in court costs/attorney fees for you) still won't balance out...

Not carrying is always the individual's choice... I choose to not keep a job that under the strict requirements of 30.06 truly forbids my carry on their premises... I also choose to ignore certain poorly worded policies that don't actually mean anything except i "could" lose my job... your choice is yours, concealed DOES MEAN CONCEALED, and in the end no one will fault you for "needing" a job, or adhering to that policy... It's simply that some of us choose not to. I'd rather be in court to defend my Right and granted privilege to carry where no true "notice" was given, than to be unarmed at a time when my life depends on it.

Lykoi

If a person ignores their employers policy and carries a gun, for whatever reason they come up with to justify it in their own mind, they are not behaving ethically. What other policies would such a person decide shouldn't apply to them, I have to wonder.

Better to find another job if you feel so strongly about that than to allow your ethics to begin to decay.

The choice to ignore a policy is no different than a choice to ignore a law. The consequences are different, but the thinking is the same.