TexasCHLforum.com

You know, as far as the parking lot thing, I understand the issue about private property and the argument that you should have the right to forbid possession on your own property if you so choose. I'm not saying I agree, but at least that's a fair and debatable point.

But his is state property here. It's my property and it's your property. What goes on there shouldn't be left to the whims of a career bureaucrat when it comes to a fundamental rights issue. Again, I can understand if not agree that there is at least an appearance of conflict over private property rights vs. my right to possess a firearm. But when the state itself grants me the right to carry via a CHL, it should be implicit that I should be free to do so on the state's own property. How this is even debatable is beyond me. I'm so angry over this (and a couple of other draconian policies) that I'm seriously considering quitting this job. And as I mentioned in my initial post, I don't even have my CHL yet.

Mr. Cotton, I will be writing letters to my state senator and representative in support of your bill, with particular emphasis on the state employee situation. Just for grins, I think I'm going to run it by the union and see what kind of nonsense they come back with.

Also, mando, my agency utilizes a boatload of contractors and my understanding is that they are by and large, if not entirely, subject to the same policies as employees while performing their duties under the contract.

Scott Farkus wrote: Also, mando, my agency utilizes a boatload of contractors and my understanding is that they are by and large, if not entirely, subject to the same policies as employees while performing their duties under the contract.

I would have to with you on that.

Thanks

Scott:

I'm a state employee also and here is the skinny. Yes it is legal for a CHL to carry on state property (other than exceptions stated by law- schools, etc.). As an employee of the state, there is a standing policy that guns are not allowed on or in state owned property. What this means is that if you carry to work, you will not be arrested or charged as you are legally licensed to do so. As an employee, you have willfullly violated employer policy and will be fired. Not for carrying, but for violating policy. That is what your personnel record will reflect.

Although I don't agree with this line of thought, it does make sense. I'm more upset with the policy that an employee may NOT expect any reasonable amount of privacy while on state property. This means you, your property, and car may be searched without consent any time for no reason whatsoever other than your employer (supervisor) felt like it. Now that would be something to quit over.

So, state employees who work in the capitol can't use the CHL express lane?

mgood wrote:So, state employees who work in the capitol can't use the CHL express lane?

Sure they can. They just can't be carrying.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Many tens of thousands of CHL's commute to and from work, sometimes over long distances and with their children, unarmed because of groundless employment policies.

Chas.

Don't ask-don't tell.

State employees at the capitol have an employee ID badge that gets them through. I go to the capitol every day but don't go in any of the main "public" entrances. Never get screened. It's been 28 years since I went to new employee orientation. Don't think the gun issue was ever brought up. I'm all for don't ask, don't tell. I will be looking for an online version of an employee orientation. I know the agency personnel manual doesn't address guns.

I retired from the state last year; I worked as a civilian employee for DPS. There was no prohibition against carrying by CHL holders. I carried every day, no problem. If there is a policy against carrying, it would be by each individual agency.

Mando'a wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote: Also, mando, my agency utilizes a boatload of contractors and my understanding is that they are by and large, if not entirely, subject to the same policies as employees while performing their duties under the contract.

I would have to with you on that.

Thanks

Likely true, but when I was contracted at a state agency in Austin (rare for me as I am usually flying to another state) I carried every day I was there. I did not get any briefing whatsoever about firearms. Only an NDA .

Commander wrote:I retired from the state last year; I worked as a civilian employee for DPS. There was no prohibition against carrying by CHL holders. I carried every day, no problem. If there is a policy against carrying, it would be by each individual agency.

Affirmative on the observation - each agency makes their own policy.

bamalam wrote:Scott:

I'm a state employee also and here is the skinny. Yes it is legal for a CHL to carry on state property (other than exceptions stated by law- schools, etc.). As an employee of the state, there is a standing policy that guns are not allowed on or in state owned property. What this means is that if you carry to work, you will not be arrested or charged as you are legally licensed to do so. As an employee, you have willfullly violated employer policy and will be fired. Not for carrying, but for violating policy. That is what your personnel record will reflect.

Although I don't agree with this line of thought, it does make sense. I'm more upset with the policy that an employee may NOT expect any reasonable amount of privacy while on state property. This means you, your property, and car may be searched without consent any time for no reason whatsoever other than your employer (supervisor) felt like it. Now that would be something to quit over.

How does this make sense?

Whoever is running the show at this state entity is not a private business owner. The law states that with certain exceptions, you can carry on state property.
How can a state entity create policy that contradicts a law specifically addressing the issue?

I personally would want to know why the Governor's office is allowing state employee's to suffer from this "state" of affairs.

I sat down this weekend to write letters to my state rep, state senator, and Gov. Perry in support of the parking lot bill. I was crafting language to emphasize the particular absurdity of the current situation with respect to state employees (i.e. me), when it occurred to me that, as far as the state employee thing is concerned, couldn't Governor Perry simply declare by Executive Order that state agencies cannot prohibit their CHL holding employees from carrying at work or from keeping firearms in their vehicles on state property? This doesn't even need the approval of the Legislature, correct? Isn't it simply a policy decision that falls under his jurisdiction as the Chief Executive Officer of the state?

If anyone has any thoughts on this I'd appreciate it, as I would like to incorporate this into my letter to Gov. Perry.

I was/am worried about this myself. I do not recall anything from my employee training and when I searched the online employee handbook I could not find anything whatsoever that even mentioned CHL/Carry. As it happens my office is actually in a leased building so the state doesn't even own the building or parkinglot.

I'm not super excited about calling HR though to ask them as, unless I use a public phone, they will know exactly who is making the inquiry, which just draws unwanted attention to me.

As I understand it verbal warning is sufficient, but how do they prove they told you, if you don't have some kind of written and signed document? Granted I must have signed 100+ pages on my first day, so who knows. I might have signed over my first born.

AustinMRH wrote:I was/am worried about this myself. I do not recall anything from my employee training and when I searched the online employee handbook I could not find anything whatsoever that even mentioned CHL/Carry. As it happens my office is actually in a leased building so the state doesn't even own the building or parkinglot.

I'm not super excited about calling HR though to ask them as, unless I use a public phone, they will know exactly who is making the inquiry, which just draws unwanted attention to me.

As I understand it verbal warning is sufficient, but how do they prove they told you, if you don't have some kind of written and signed document? Granted I must have signed 100+ pages on my first day, so who knows. I might have signed over my first born.

You work for the State. They shouldn't be using policy/regulations to take your rights away from you unless there is some overriding concern.

Purplehood wrote:You work for the State. They shouldn't be using policy/regulations to take your rights away from you unless there is some overriding concern.

I understand that they "shouldn't". But it is a fact - at least as far as my agency is concerned - that they DO. The discussion is what can or should be done to correct it.

Frankly, if what I suspect and posted above is true, I'm a bit disappointed that Perry hasn't already taken care of this by Executive Order.

AustinMRH, I understand your concerns about bringing the issue up to HR. Even though our management insists that there are confidentiality protections for these sorts of inquiries, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. In our case, it is clearly spelled out in the HR manual. If your manual is silent as to this, I would assume that it is allowed unless you are expressly told otherwise, in writing. Or at least I would assume it would be a defense against being fired if you were caught (but IANAL).

Whether you are in state owned or state leased space should not matter, but again, IANAL.