The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Nonsense. A CHL is a proven abider of rules and respect for authority, it would be reasonable to conclude they would NOT violate the policy.Rex B wrote:If the company has a strict no-guns policy, and they know you are a CHL holder, they could resonably suspect you might choose to violate that policy.
Good point. It is Air Force Plant #4.135boomer wrote:I don't think they will need an exception. I believe the company is on federal property.
I believe it is also ironic, and somewhat hypocritical that if a company/employer could trust me enough to be a key member of a small team that handled/developed/completed a $350 million dollar contract, in a foriegn country to boot...Renegade wrote:Nonsense. A CHL is a proven abider of rules and respect for authority, it would be reasonable to conclude they would NOT violate the policy.Rex B wrote:If the company has a strict no-guns policy, and they know you are a CHL holder, they could resonably suspect you might choose to violate that policy.
Yep, I think you are correct.Rex B wrote:Perhaps they have facilities that are not Federal, and want all their properties covered.
Just playing devil's advocate here, if they openly allow you to carry, they'd also have to let that "marginal" guy in the corner cubicle (who has a CHL, Lord knows how) carry also. As a former employer, I have had people running my stores, handling thousands of dollars in cash on a daily basis unsupervised, that I would not be comfortable representing my business if I knew they were carrying. It's better to have a blanket policy and then make off-record exceptions. Hopefully we would have an enlightened employer who would see us as exceptions, should it ever come to that.stevie_d_64 wrote: I believe it is also ironic, and somewhat hypocritical that if a company/employer could trust me enough to be a key member of a small team that handled/developed/completed a $350 million dollar contract, in a foriegn country to boot...
I have to wonder why they feel I am not trustworthy to conduct myself accordingly working in their office...
This is basically as petty as I can imagine an employer being at this point...
Just my opinion...
Since they work on Federal Security projects, I think you're coming under the guidelines of military and federal property. If you get busted, goodbye to your clearance?????propellerhead wrote:I was afraid of that. It's probably in response to a shooting at our Marietta, GA location back in 2003.
Thanks.
Of course we are...Thats the beauty of this system...I give myself headaches here, as much as I can stand...seamusTX wrote:Y'all are overthinking this issue.
You are correct, the agency can be fined as well. Had an incident where one of my troops was running DL's at work for personal (female) reasons. It was questioned in an audit and he came clean. The only reason they didn't fine us, or so they said, was because they knew we, the USAF, would put a pretty big hurt on him. AND WE DID!!!txinvestigator wrote:I am embarrassed to admit I did not consider that. However, it is a possibility. If a LEO or LE communications operator runs the Driver License for them, the CHL would show. Doing that can cost the person their job, a HUGE fine and also a fine to the agency, I believe.Charles L. Cotton wrote:It sounds to me like that have someone running a check on their TDLs. (this used to be called a CPL, but that may have changed.) That's a big "no-no."
Chas.