TexasCHLforum.com

Is other parking available close by where you could leave your car and walk?

SQLGeek wrote:That's what I figured. Lovely that my job can keep me from protecting myself while driving to and from work.

You could always park somewhere off property and walk to the office, leaving your handgun in the car. Of course that kind of defeats the purpose, if you have a longer walk from your vehicle to the office, and have to do it unarmed.

I think businesses that post as 30.06 should be held legally liable if something DOES occur and you are licensed to carry and are unable to carry due to the 30.06 posting. I know if it happened to me, if I survived I would sue the pants off of them.

SQLGeek wrote:That's what I figured. Lovely that my job can keep me from protecting myself while driving to and from work.

I feel your pain and we all agree with your sentiment. But fear not. In the next Legislative session, I'm sure that both the employee parking lot bill and the campus carry bill will be submitted early on in the session. Maybe this time they will be passed.
(I'm cautiously optimistic).

LarryH wrote:Is other parking available close by where you could leave your car and walk?

Not that I know of. I may look around some to see but it is not a good neighborhood near my work and I would be a bit leery leaving the car out there.

Joe, that is what I am hoping for as well. I will get on the letter writing and phone calls to the right folks.

Sorry for the threadjack, MojoTexas. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

SQLGeek wrote:Sorry for the threadjack, MojoTexas. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

No problem...although I had a specific question, your discussion is also relevant and on-topic.

SQLGeek said he doesn't have a CHL yet... so how you a sign forbidding posession of a handgun by a license holder apply to him? If a 30.06 is all that is posted I don't see it forbidding a non-license holder from keeping a handgun in his or her car.

Of course, IANAL et c.

joe817 wrote:

SQLGeek wrote:That's what I figured. Lovely that my job can keep me from protecting myself while driving to and from work.

I feel your pain and we all agree with your sentiment. But fear not. In the next Legislative session, I'm sure that both the employee parking lot bill and the campus carry bill will be submitted early on in the session. Maybe this time they will be passed.
(I'm cautiously optimistic).

I hope you are right, and while we are hoping, I hope open carry is there as well.

Let me throw a curveball into the OP situation.

As I understand from this thread, verbal notification basically is the same as posting 30.06.

How about this situation:

You work for an entity at a building specifically exempt from 30.06 (such as a building owned or leased by a local government) whereas no public meetings or other situations exist that would prevent a CHL citizen from carrying in the building. However, because you are an employee, you've received verbal notice and it is in the employee handbook that you may not have handguns on the premise.

Now what is the "legal" ramifications? As a CHL holder, in my scenerio, 30.06 can not apply, however, as an employee, you've been given effective notice not to carry. Thoughts?

kidder014 wrote:Let me throw a curveball into the OP situation.

As I understand from this thread, verbal notification basically is the same as posting 30.06.

How about this situation:

You work for an entity at a building specifically exempt from 30.06 (such as a building owned or leased by a local government) whereas no public meetings or other situations exist that would prevent a CHL citizen from carrying in the building. However, because you are an employee, you've received verbal notice and it is in the employee handbook that you may not have handguns on the premise.

Now what is the "legal" ramifications? As a CHL holder, in my scenerio, 30.06 can not apply, however, as an employee, you've been given effective notice not to carry. Thoughts?

Whether it's oral notice or proper signage, it's still 30.06 notice. There can be no valid 30.06 notice in a government building, other than meetings of government entities, so it wouldn't apply in your scenario.

The ramifications would be the same as violating any other workplace rule.

MojoTexas wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

GhostTX wrote:Technically, you are violating the law. You've been given written notice per the employee policy.

IANAL

GhostTX, I respectfully but strongly disagree.

(snip...)

So if OP's only notice that handguns are not allowed at his job is a written notice in an employee handbook that does not match the phrasing of PC 30.06, then I do not believe he is committing a crime (though he could certainly be fired). Of course, if his boss or someone else with apparent authority (an HR person, a security guard, the company president) told him ORALLY that carrying a firearm on the premises is not allowed, then he likely IS committing criminal trespass under PC 30.06

IANAL

Well, technically my boss *HAS* told me verbally that carrying a firearm is not permitted. Not that he's anti-gun...he has his CHL as well, and we've gone to the range together several times. I also know of a couple of other CHL co-workers. My boss doesn't like the policy any more than I do, but since he's my supervisor, and since he's told me verbally, it sounds like I'm out of luck.

We'll have to agree to disagree. But my understanding is an employee handbook (that you've verified you've read, ergo signature) is effective written communication. I should have cut-n-pasted 30.06, though. Further, as Mojo said, his boss verbally told him which qualifies as (duh) oral communication. All this also hinges on "person in apparent authority". Both the manual, and the boss, can be interpreted from someone in authority.

Bear in mind Texas is a right to work state. So if they employer has a zero tolerance policy on weapons, you can fight the gray area of oral/written communication in court while you're unemployed.

Now, my irony is I've been given both written and oral communication at work to not carry; however, one of y'all can come visit and carry all day long because the signs aren't 30.06.

txmatt wrote:SQLGeek said he doesn't have a CHL yet... so how you a sign forbidding posession of a handgun by a license holder apply to him? If a 30.06 is all that is posted I don't see it forbidding a non-license holder from keeping a handgun in his or her car.

There's also the question what "carries" means in the 30.06 law. Especially if someone has a handgun in the trunk or other locked container.

The best solution, as usual when it comes to antigun bigotry, is don't get caught.

txmatt wrote:Of course, IANAL et c.

Me too.

boomerang wrote:

GhostTX wrote:Technically, you are violating the law. You've been given written notice per the employee policy.

How do you know? Did I miss the part where he posted the wording of the policy manual?

I assumed the OP "policy" was defined in an employee manual or other employee communication. Now, it seems, it was verbal. But I would still say that comes from some written policy somewhere within the company.

MojoTexas wrote:

SQLGeek wrote: I think businesses that post as 30.06 should be held legally liable if something DOES occur and you are licensed to carry and are unable to carry due to the 30.06 posting. I know if it happened to me, if I survived I would sue the pants off of them.

I have thought of the same thing. Unfortunately the person most affected by, and adamit about carrying (CHL HOLDER) would be dead.

GhostTX wrote:

boomerang wrote:

GhostTX wrote:Technically, you are violating the law. You've been given written notice per the employee policy.

How do you know? Did I miss the part where he posted the wording of the policy manual?

I assumed the OP "policy" was defined in an employee manual or other employee communication. Now, it seems, it was verbal. But I would still say that comes from some written policy somewhere within the company.

It was both. It is in the employee handbook, and also I was told verbally by my CHL-holding supervisor.

Here's the wording from the company handbook:

Initech prohibits possession of weapons on all Company property, including workplace buildings, retail stores, and parking lots (unless permissible under state law). Any act or threat of violence must be reported immediately to a Manager, HR and/or Security.

So I'm not even allowed to leave a weapon in my locked vehicle in a company parking lot unless Texas can get the parking lot bill passed in the next session. That blurb about "state law" is clarified later in the document because employees in Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana have a parking-lot law that permits them to leave a firearm in a locked vehicle.

Effective July 1, 2008, Florida and Georgia employees and contractors will have certain rights under Florida Statute 790.251 (“Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008”) and Georgia Code 16-11-135 (“Business Security and Employee Privacy Act”) which supersede this policy as it relates to certain legal firearms in the employee’s or contractor’s locked private motor vehicle on the Company’s parking lots.

Effective August 15, 2008, Louisiana employees and contractors will have certain rights under Louisiana R.S. 32:292.1 (Senate Bill 51 (Act 684)) which supersedes this policy as it relates to certain legal firearms in the employee’s or contractor’s locked private motor vehicle on the Company’s parking lots.

Sigh....

and parking lots (unless permissible under state law)

Well, isn't your CHL therefore permissible under state law?