TexasCHLforum.com

Good luck.

Cotton,
Can you assist in this?? What is the case law on a National level regarding employers rights to prohibit weapons on property? What about leaving a weapon in your vehicle? I believe there are several cases upheld that have said the employer is allowed to prevent weapons for the protection of ALL employees at the expense of a few. I don't have the access you would have to find the cases. If the employer can fire you and it not be a wrongful termination (If you were legally carrying etc. improper sign etc.) doesn't that by default say they have the right to prevent? I know this all truthfully hinges on a court case in Texas, however I am under the impression most of us are looking in the wrong direction for the answer (only at 30.06). I still contend that because the legislature SPECIFICALLY put GC 411.203 that says rights of employers. "This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right oa a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business." That it pretty much says your rights under this chapter do not apply if they say you can't? All of this comes before ANY mention of 30.06 under criminal statue. My other contention if you follow this line of thinking at all is that if you are not lawful to carry under GC411 because an employer says so under the .203 section then if you are caught there with a concealed weapon then you are not lawfully carrying under the CHL. I know most of you don't and will never see that there may be another interpretation or line of thought.

My personal opinion is that they should not be able to prevent it, however everything I have read up on says they can. I would not personally work for a company that prohibited my right to at least carry in my own vehicle. I am one of the fortunate few that can carry on my hip in plain view everyday and have the ability to allow others the same right on my property. I do think that there is a lot of narrow sightedness in viewing the interpretation or even research on case law when it comes to many of the conversations on here. Thank the good lord for now that we still have the right to disagree and argue!!!

TDDude wrote:That's why it's called a "C"(oncealed) HL.

Get good at concealing. Become an expert at concealing. Be the concealment god. As long as you keep your mouth shut and there's no metal detectors, I'd say at that place you have no problem.

Deep concealment is very easy to do. I've been carrying for years and it shocks most of my close friends when I tell them that I'm carrying a 9mm & 46 rounds of ammo. They can never tell.

Yup. I took a good friend shooting the other day, and we got around to handguns, I drew and cleared my carry gun and moved my 2 spare mags to my pocket to make room for practice mags and ammo. He noticed my Gold Dots and asked what they were for. "That's my carry ammo", I replied. He looked surprised and asked "Is this how you roll?". I replied "every time you've seen me for quite a long time". He was taken aback that I had that much stuff on me and had never noticed.

For the record, I carry a Hi-Power in 9mm and a total of 41 rounds of ammo (14+1 and two 13-round extra mags). All of it is carried OWB, concealed with an untucked and unbuttoned work shirt.

LarryH wrote:

TDDude wrote:Deep concealment is very easy to do. I've been carrying for years and it shocks most of my close friends when I tell them that I'm carrying a 9mm & 46 rounds of ammo. They can never tell.

What holster/other method of concealment are you using?

Nothing special about it.

I usually carry OWB with some no-name leather pancake I found on EBAY for $5 but when I have to go tucked or wear a tighter fitting untucked shirt I have a Texas Heritage IWB from Tucker. My mag pouch I found at Acadamy Sports. It's a simple canvas double pouch with velcro straps to cover and hold mags in place. The double mag pouch was around $12 and the single was around $8. If I have to tuck I do use the single as it's a bit less conspicuous. I guess if one looks close at my mag pouch one can tell what it is but those Uncle Mic pouches hide things pretty well. I like carrying double mags because it actually balances the weight better. One HUGE tell that a man is carrying, especially IWB is a zipper that doesn't go straight up on one's slacks/jeans. Having the double mag opposite my pistol helps balance the weight because even with a heavy duty 1.5" gunbelt, it will still hang to one side a bit. I did splurge on my belt. It's a Galco GB4 which is 1.5" and tapered. The tapering makes it super comfortable and very solid. It was expensive but I've had it for about 7 years and wear it everyday with no problems.

My pistol is a Beretta Mini cougar when I have to tuck my shirt and a regular cougar when I go OWB.

The other trick is to always wear patterned shirts. It breaks up the outline of the print.

I also have a SmartCarry but I don't use it much. Back when I was husky (that's FAT for those of you who may be confused) the Smartcarry worked very well. However, after being disgusted with myself enough, I bought a used Adkins book, did what it said and lost about 100lbs. Now the SmartCarry really isn't comfortable for some reason so I only use it when I have to wear overalls.

That's about it. Oh yea, another HUGE tell is when the wearer is constantly adjusting and fidgeting with his rig. Get used to it and basically forget that it's there. Get a solid belt so it stays where it should and you can go about your business.

ctxpta wrote:Cotton,
Can you assist in this?? What is the case law on a National level regarding employers rights to prohibit weapons on property? What about leaving a weapon in your vehicle?

Federal law does not come into play at all, except with federal employees on federal facilities. The federal court case in Oklahoma is on appeal, but even it doesn't prohibit carrying on an employer's property. (This is the case that struck down Oklahoma's employer parking lot law, based upon OSHA's regulations. It's an absurd ruling that should be reversed, but who knows what an appellate court will do.)

ctxpta wrote:I believe there are several cases upheld that have said the employer is allowed to prevent weapons for the protection of ALL employees at the expense of a few.

I don't know of any based upon federal law. Sometimes federal courts have cases in which they have to apply state law to part or all of the case. When this situation exists, the federal court will review and apply state law. In rare cases when state courts have not addressed the issue, the federal district court trying the case can certify the state law question to the State Supreme Court, then apply that court's answer to the case.

ctxpta wrote:I still contend that because the legislature SPECIFICALLY put GC 411.203 that says rights of employers. "This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right oa a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business." That it pretty much says your rights under this chapter do not apply if they say you can't?

As much as I sincerely appreciate DPS's dedication to the CHL program and CHL's, I have to admit being very disappointed in this aspect of the CHL course and student test. I'm pretty sure I know how this grossly misleading "information" got into the material, as does every CHL Instructor I know.

TGC §411.203 is meaningless, absolutely meaningless, except for the new §411.203(b) that deals with law enforcement facilities. The original §411.203 was put into SB60 only because some opponents argued the employers would not be able to prohibit their employees from carrying guns at work. Including this language in a statue was silly, as it amounts to nothing more than codifying legislative intent that the "CHL bill" was not intended to effect an employer's private property rights.

Legally, TPC §411.203 does not create a criminal offense, so it cannot be used to prosecute anyone. DPS's implies, but does not state, that §411.203 means an employee can be prosecuted for violation of TPC §30.06 if a non-compliant sign or employee manual provision is used. This is blatantly false. Since TPC §411.203 does not create a criminal offense, we have to look to TPC §30.06 for authority to prosecute. TPC §30.06 specifies the precise statutory requirements (elements of the crime) that must be met to prosecute someone. Nowhere in §30.06 is an employer exempted from these requirements, nor is any reference made to TPC §411.203.

Also, an employer has no authority to deprive a CHL of "rights" or authority granted by any statute, including the CHL statute. Only governmental entities can do that.

ctxpta wrote:My other contention if you follow this line of thinking at all is that if you are not lawful to carry under GC411 because an employer says so under the .203 section then if you are caught there with a concealed weapon then you are not lawfully carrying under the CHL. I know most of you don't and will never see that there may be another interpretation or line of thought.

As noted above, no employer's policies or rules have any effect on your rights and authority under Texas law.

ctxpta wrote:My personal opinion is that they should not be able to prevent it, however everything I have read up on says they can.

I've never read anything that supports this interpretation, other than the DPS CHL Course and test. As noted earlier, even DPS doesn't actually say you can be prosecuted, but that is sure implied in the course material and on the test question. I am very careful to teach the truth about TGC §411.203. Not directly on point, but the other downside on DPS's teaching is that is may mislead employees to think that an employer must post some sign, or include "no-gun" language in an employee manual in order to fire them. This is not true and could cause someone to get fired.

I hope this helps.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hope this helps.

I always appreciate hearing from you. Now where is that tissue, I need to wipe this brown stuff off

I expect to talk to the president tomorrow. I'll let y'all know what happens.

Present yourself well, keep your cool (I'm sure you'll do both) and you'll be fine. Good luck and keep us posted!

Now this is just messed up. The PEO's HR department refuses to speak with employees. And they are flat out wrong on the requirements of the law. This one might be easy. It is their stance that it is illegal to carry in the office no matter what and that the sign is correct regardless of the size of the font. So the sign is simply a reminder of the law and is not needed to make the premises off limits.

Seems moot now, as you have received verbal notice.

txinvestigator wrote:Seems moot now, as you have received verbal notice.

Actually, I have not received verbal notice. I have been paying very close attention and I have not once heard anything approaching "you can't carry here". I have heard things like "it is their interpretation of the law that...". But I am still going to speak with the company president and see where it goes from there. I'm also not convinced that the organization posting the sign has the authority to do so under § 30.06 (b) as I don't think they could be construed to have the authority to act for the owner.

It looks like the company president is most concerned with the liability aspects of not posting the 30.06 sign. Is there any case law or legal opinion as to the liability of posting or not posting? I can sure make an argument, but legal opinion / case law is always better. He is also concerned that the PEO could drop us if we don't post that sign and that may or may not have any validity but I assume that would be in the contract and not in statute.

So, as long as you stay out of the breakroom you can carry? You can carry it around the rest of the building?
Just trying to understand.

The building in this case is an office complex that houses many companies. My company takes up 1 suite on the 3rd floor. This sign in our break room is the only thing anywhere near a 30.06 sign that I have seen. So yes, the rest of the building is CHL friendly. And this sign is NOT compliant so I am not in danger of criminal trespass at this point no matter what. Honestly, I read a portion earlier today that had me curious. 30.06 (c) (3) (iii) that requires it be clearly visible to the public. I really don't think our company break room is visible to the public. There are so many holes here that I am convincing myself more and more that this is strictly an employment issue and not a criminal issue.

If the company is small enough and/or you have a strong enough relationship with the company president, the best solution may be for el presidente to give you permission to carry. Then the PEO can post whatever they want and it's irrelevant because you have effective consent.

And don't let the PEO know their sign is the wrong size.

cbr600 wrote:If the company is small enough and/or you have a strong enough relationship with the company president, the best solution may be for el presidente to give you permission to carry. Then the PEO can post whatever they want and it's irrelevant because you have effective consent.

Knowing Mitch a bit (yeah, we are small enough that even the president is a first name person - 20 employees total), I would guess that his first choice will be to tell the PEO to take a flying leap if he can get away with it - but it isn't worth losing the PEO over. Second choice will probably be to do a nudge/wink thing (heck, he didn't know that I carried all this time anyway). But I will probably try to get that actual okay from him or at least an understanding that what is posted isn't legally binding and that I will strictly follow the law. He will be okay with that I think (worst case).