TexasCHLforum.com

The memo forced on me states that an employer has the right to ban handguns on their property for employees by any means they feel necessary. This means that it can be stated in their employment paperwork, verbally or even a ghostbusters sign. Example: I walk into a office building and it has a sign that says "no guns" I am good since I am just a regular chl holder visiting; however if I am employed by the owner of that building then I am in the wrong and can be charged for trespassing/unlawful carry.

VrRotate wrote:The memo forced on me states that an employer has the right to ban handguns on their property for employees by any means they feel necessary. This means that it can be stated in their employment paperwork, verbally or even a ghostbusters sign. Example: I walk into a office building and it has a sign that says "no guns" I am good since I am just a regular chl holder visiting; however if I am employed by the owner of that building then I am in the wrong and can be charged for trespassing/unlawful carry.

Can you provide a link to that law? I know you can be fired without receiving notice under 30.06 but that's different.

VrRotate wrote:The memo forced on me states that an employer has the right to ban handguns on their property for employees by any means they feel necessary. This means that it can be stated in their employment paperwork, verbally or even a ghostbusters sign. Example: I walk into a office building and it has a sign that says "no guns" I am good since I am just a regular chl holder visiting; however if I am employed by the owner of that building then I am in the wrong and can be charged for trespassing/unlawful carry.

This is incorrect, at least to the extent you are talking about written notification via policy manual or sign. To be prosecuted under any criminal statute, all elements of the crime must be present. To prosecute under TPC §30.06, you must be given effective notice either verbally or in writing. Verbal notice does not require any special verbiage; anything that gets the "no guns" message across is sufficient.

If effective notice is to be given in writing, such as in an employer policy manual, then the exact language required by TPC §30.06 must be used. If the written notice is in the form of a sign, then the size and color requirements must also be met. So generic "no guns" signs will not be sufficient to prosecute an employee or non-employee. There is a question on this issue on the CHL exam and, although factually correct as worded, it is grossly misleading both as to an employer's ability to terminate an employee, and as to potential prosecution. This question was written by a certain infamous lawyer at DPS and it reflects what she wishes the law allows, not what it requires.

Chas.

VrRotate wrote:The memo forced on me states that an employer has the right to ban handguns on their property for employees by any means they feel necessary. This means that it can be stated in their employment paperwork, verbally or even a ghostbusters sign. Example: I walk into a office building and it has a sign that says "no guns" I am good since I am just a regular chl holder visiting; however if I am employed by the owner of that building then I am in the wrong and can be charged for trespassing/unlawful carry.

Incorrect. You must be informed orally or the notification must be in the manual or notice in the form of 30.06 to be charged. However, they CAN fire you.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(c)
In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(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.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, Sec. 23, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.24, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

And Charles beat me to it.

tallmike wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

Rex B wrote:Further, if she did indeed leave a loaded firearm unattended in an area secured from same because of mentally unstable people having access, then she is not the sort of CHLer we need to support.

I agree with this in principle, but I believe we have to look at the bigger picture. Anti-gunners will use ever opportunity to take away our rights. The nurse may have done something stupid, but stupid isn't necessarily illegal. I believe it's in our best interest as a whole to be sure she doesn't become a negative statistic.

I will not support someone that I believe was wrong just to be "sure she doesnt become a negative statistic" thats just silly and supporting every fool with a CHL detracts from our argument.

We need to be reasonable and selective in our support and only then can we expect the opposition to be reasonable and selective too.

I dont care if the other side will or wont be reasonable and selective,

I will do what I think is right not what my opponent is doing

.

You will keep your integrity and self respect but lose a lot of fights.

Charles and Keith,

Thanks for the cites and I understand the laws and language behind them and agree with you 100%. Unfortunately I can't currently raise much argument to the author of the clarification memo, however when I do get out from under them I will be bringing up these points, hopefully they get themselves proven wrong first ;)