TexasCHLforum.com

The city where I have been employed for the last 17 yrs has a habit of writing and updating employee policies whenever it wants without notification to its employees. the following is one which was recently found which warrants further research. I fully understand their right to impose this while I am at work, but when I am not at work how can they prevent a legally licensed person from carrying in a city owned or leased property?


B. Weapons. No employee (1) have, bring, carry, or possess; (2) on, about, or near his or her person; (3) any firearm, prohibited weapon (as defined by Texas Penal Code), or explosive or incendiary device; (4) while at, on, or in any building, structure, vehicle, or other property owned or leased by the City of *******. Violation of this policy is subject to corrective action up to and including termination.

This prohibition applies to and includes: (1) all employees entering any vehicle, building, structure, or property owned or leased by the City of*******; (2) all firearms and other devices described above, whether carried openly or concealed, without regard to whether classified as a handgun or a long gun, and regardless of whether the employee has a state-issued permit otherwise authorizing concealed carrying of a handgun; (3) an employee’s personal (and city-issued) garments, handbags, briefcases, purses, suitcases, bags, sacks, boxes, pouches, bottles, desks, lockers, other containers and fixtures, and motor vehicles; (4) all City employees, whether on or off duty, when they are on City owned or leased property.

Sure, they can enforce it. You might get a reversal if you can afford a really sharp lawyer while unemployed.

- Jim

fire128 wrote:(4) all City employees, whether on or off duty, when they are on City owned or leased property.

Hmm...I don't see an exception for police.

The rules seem to restrict Police officer from carrying while on duty, and anyone from carrying while on city streets. The rules are too broad to be held up in any court. Then again they can pretty much fire you for any reason and its up to you to fight and pay for it.

I am not a lawyer, but I did pass the Bar at the Holiday Inn last week

The indications are that as a city employee even when I am not at work they can dictate my behavior even though I am breaking no laws. City governments can not regulate the carrying, only the state, so if an employer says you can not carry even when you are not at work, is that enforceable?

Those are policies and not laws. Of course they can enforce them which includes firing you if caught.

What does the other half say? We see the first part says, "Employees shall not...." but we don't see what it says if employees do.

Photoman wrote:What does the other half say? We see the first part says, "Employees shall not...." but we don't see what it says if employees do.

It's there:

Violation of this policy is subject to corrective action up to and including termination.

Many employers have policies that affect employees' legal, off-duty behavior. Smoking bans are the most common type.

- Jim

I am not sure about non-sworn city employees, but it has long been upheld by the courts that a city may make rules that affect an officer's behavior while off-duty. Some of the logic used was to protect the city from liability and to protect the honor of the city and profession.

srothstein wrote:I am not sure about non-sworn city employees, but it has long been upheld by the courts that a city may make rules that affect an officer's behavior while off-duty. Some of the logic used was to protect the city from liability and to protect the honor of the city and profession.

Its also common to enforce of duty behavior on school teachers. Where I would think these rules would fall apart is that they are too vague. Aren't streets city property? The rules don't exempt Police officers? If a rule can't be enforced evenly the courts are unlikely to buy into their validity. Of course that still doesn't stop them from firing someone. I doubt if any cop would turn someone in under these circumstances afterall they could be disarmed because of this rule.

Dumb town, I wonder what is in their water supply.

fire128 wrote:This prohibition applies to and includes: (1) all employees entering any vehicle, building, structure, or property owned or leased by the City of*******; (2) all firearms and other devices described above, whether carried openly or concealed, without regard to whether classified as a handgun or a long gun, and regardless of whether the employee has a state-issued permit otherwise authorizing concealed carrying of a handgun; (3) an employee’s personal (and city-issued) garments, handbags, briefcases, purses, suitcases, bags, sacks, boxes, pouches, bottles, desks, lockers, other containers and fixtures, and motor vehicles; (4) all City employees, whether on or off duty, when they are on City owned or leased property.

Its interesting that City Employees do not have the same rights as other citizens of the city when off duty. That is, Joe Blow Citizen CAN carry on city property - while an off duty employee is prohibited. I understand that an employer has the right to prohibit employees from carrying while at work; but off duty?

When an employer attempts to restrict an employee's LEGAL*, off-duty behavior, then the employee is effectively on duty to a certain extent, and ought to be paid for his "overtime."


* - Note the word "LEGAL" . . . there are some cases where off-duty illegal activity can, and should, be grounds for termination; an example would be an airline pilot smoking crack during his down time.

HankB wrote:When an employer attempts to restrict an employee's LEGAL*, off-duty behavior, then the employee is effectively on duty to a certain extent, and ought to be paid for his "overtime."

Write your congressman, because that is not the current situation.

Many people work in places that enforce various rules about off-duty behavior. Smoking bans are the most common, as I mentioned earlier. Many people have to carry pagers and be on call without compensation. Some places have "no fraternization" rules about relationships between employees. One guy I know was told to have no contact with laid-off coworkers (I don't know how the morons thought they could enforce that one).

- Jim