TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote: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.

I guess I can understand that logic. But I place my God granted rights above the restrictions of any man. Even the founding fathers made it a point to encourage/demand that we ignore any law repugnant to the constitution. And even to ignore those constitutional things that clash with our God given rights.

Lykoi wrote: 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...

Those of us who have served in the Armed Forces worked under the "unlimited liability" clause and while we would rather have seen the other guy die for his/her country, we were willing to pay the ultimate price to defend this nation.

Back to the OP...KBCraig summed it up nicely in his earlier response. To be criminal, the employer must provide notice that meets the requirements of 30.06.

As an old HR professional, I wonder if telling employees during new-hire orientation that CHLs were not welcome would constitute verbal notice and subject the holder to criminal charges in addition to anything the employer wants to do for the breach of policy...

Tom

tbranch wrote:As an old HR professional, I wonder if telling employees during new-hire orientation that CHLs were not welcome would constitute verbal notice and subject the holder to criminal charges in addition to anything the employer wants to do for the breach of policy...

Tom

I believe it would. If a person says the words "No guns" or similar, that constitutes effective notice as defined in PC30.06, in my opinion.

GrillKing wrote:

tbranch wrote:As an old HR professional, I wonder if telling employees during new-hire orientation that CHLs were not welcome would constitute verbal notice and subject the holder to criminal charges in addition to anything the employer wants to do for the breach of policy...

Tom

I believe it would. If a person says the words "No guns" or similar, that constitutes effective notice as defined in PC30.06, in my opinion.

As the saying goes: "prove it!"

Verbal notice is obviously very hard to prove. That's why employers have employees sign receipts for employee handbooks and standards of conduct. One of my favorite replies when being told to violate policy is, "Sure thing, can I get that in a memo?"

Somehow the signed, written directive order to violate policy never shows up.

KBCraig wrote:As the saying goes: "prove it!"

I still say it is effective notice under 30.06, but you are right, proving it may be another story.

GrillKing wrote:I still say it is effective notice under 30.06, but you are right, proving it may be another story.

It would not be difficult to prove if set up correctly.

The employer could simply set up a standardized new-hire orientation outline and have everyone sign they attended. This would take care of the verbal notice.

Even better would be to update the employee handbook to have the correct verbiage from 30.06. 30.06 requires either verbal or written notice. The written notice can be on a card or other document containing the standard 30.06 notice. The only time the letters have to be a certain size and in both English and Spanish is if the notice is given via a sign.

Text of TPC 30.06:

(3) "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"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.

txinvestigator wrote: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.

yeah, because people who carry at work despite policy have the same mindset as criminals...




as far as the notification at work, if i ever received either verbal communication or proper 30.06 language disallowing carry at work, i'd find a new job... i have yet to have one employer bother to find the proper wording/sign-age to prohibit carry, in more than one of those instances it was left that way intentionally to placate a group of sheep yet allow those of us who know how to read to still carry... No weapons in the work place is the same as those no weapons in the store signs... Most don't address licensed concealed carry at all, and most aren't intended to prohibit licensed concealed carry...

you go ahead and preach morals and ethics, I'll carry every day, in every job/place/theater/grocery store/tool store that i can legally do so... my ethics and morals go far enough to understand that all i want is to be a free man who goes home to his wife at the end of the day. If your morals lean towards the companies that respect their profit margins over your personal safety than you can decide that for yourself...

tbranch wrote:

GrillKing wrote:I still say it is effective notice under 30.06, but you are right, proving it may be another story.

It would not be difficult to prove if set up correctly.

The employer could simply set up a standardized new-hire orientation outline and have everyone sign they attended. This would take care of the verbal notice.

Agree!

Lykoi wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: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.

yeah, because people who carry at work despite policy have the same mindset as criminals...




as far as the notification at work, if i ever received either verbal communication or proper 30.06 language disallowing carry at work, i'd find a new job... i have yet to have one employer bother to find the proper wording/sign-age to prohibit carry, in more than one of those instances it was left that way intentionally to placate a group of sheep yet allow those of us who know how to read to still carry... No weapons in the work place is the same as those no weapons in the store signs... Most don't address licensed concealed carry at all, and most aren't intended to prohibit licensed concealed carry...

you go ahead and preach morals and ethics, I'll carry every day, in every job/place/theater/grocery store/tool store that i can legally do so... my ethics and morals go far enough to understand that all i want is to be a free man who goes home to his wife at the end of the day. If your morals lean towards the companies that respect their profit margins over your personal safety than you can decide that for yourself...

Didn't mean to strike a nerve. You are not forced to work for any company. If you disagree with their rules to a degree that you would ignore them, then it is better to find a different place to work.

Employers can prohibit carry without 30.06 notice, and a person can and should be fired for violating their policies.

txinvestigator wrote:

Lykoi wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: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.

yeah, because people who carry at work despite policy have the same mindset as criminals...




as far as the notification at work, if i ever received either verbal communication or proper 30.06 language disallowing carry at work, i'd find a new job... i have yet to have one employer bother to find the proper wording/sign-age to prohibit carry, in more than one of those instances it was left that way intentionally to placate a group of sheep yet allow those of us who know how to read to still carry... No weapons in the work place is the same as those no weapons in the store signs... Most don't address licensed concealed carry at all, and most aren't intended to prohibit licensed concealed carry...

you go ahead and preach morals and ethics, I'll carry every day, in every job/place/theater/grocery store/tool store that i can legally do so... my ethics and morals go far enough to understand that all i want is to be a free man who goes home to his wife at the end of the day. If your morals lean towards the companies that respect their profit margins over your personal safety than you can decide that for yourself...

Didn't mean to strike a nerve. You are not forced to work for any company. If you disagree with their rules to a degree that you would ignore them, then it is better to find a different place to work.

Employers can prohibit carry without 30.06 notice, and a person can and should be fired for violating their policies.

it's only a nerve when you call law abiding citizenry armed to defend themselves and licensed to be armed the same as "criminals" by violating a company policy that elevates the company over the value of the employee...

Lykoi wrote:it's only a nerve when you call law abiding citizenry armed to defend themselves and licensed to be armed the same as "criminals" by violating a company policy that elevates the company over the value of the employee...

Apparently, you don't hold TexasCHLforum "policies" in high regard either. I think your point has already been made and txinvestigator explained his.

Chas.

What forum Policy are you referring to Chas?

rm9792 wrote:What forum Policy are you referring to Chas?

I'd like to know as well exactly what i said that was in violation of board policy?

rm9792 wrote:What forum Policy are you referring to Chas?

I'm not Chas., but here it is:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =2&t=10341

Lykoi wrote:

rm9792 wrote:What forum Policy are you referring to Chas?

I'd like to know as well exactly what i said that was in violation of board policy?

I responded to your PM.

Chas.