I presume this is not a legal sign

[mr.72]

It says:

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN), A PERSON LICENSED UNDER ARTICLE 4413(29ee), REVISED STATUS (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW) MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN"

and presumably the same translation in Spanish

and has a big # 51

Does the reference to the wrong statute number ("ARTICLE 4413(29ee)") and the "REVISED STATUS" make this sign invalid?

[Kalrog]

You are correct - that sign is not enforceable.

[boomerang]

I love that big 51. Is that in honor of the illegal aliens from Area 51? No ray guns!

[AJSully421]

where is this sign??? the texas democrat party HQ... that is all sorts of anti gun...

[KBCraig]

It was legal in 1995, but not since the passage of PC30.06.

[mr.72]

That's on the front door of my office.

They also have a duplicate sign at one of the entrances to the parking lot.

There are about five entrances to the parking lot and just as many entrances to the building. There is only one door posted (the one that allows access to the lobby ... all others require a card-reader to get in and have no posting). I didn't notice the parking lot sign until I went looking for it yesterday, since I never use that particular parking lot entrance and none of the others have a sign.

The employee manual has vague non-30.06 terminology making possession of a "firearm or weapon of any kind" grounds for dismissal, but I presume this does not constitute valid "written notice" since it's not language "identical to" the current 30.06 language.

So in summary it looks like I am only risking termination and not criminal trespass if I carry at work, right?

Has there been any test case that we are aware of, that an outdated 30.06-type sign has been ruled invalid?

[jmorris]

...
The employee manual has vague non-30.06 terminology making possession of a "firearm or weapon of any kind" grounds for dismissal, but I presume this does not constitute valid "written notice" since it's not language "identical to" the current 30.06 language.
...

Might want to seach for some of the other threads about workplace carry but what I've gathered is that it's not required for an employee manual to meet 30.06 wording.

[mr.72]

As I understand it, it is not necessary for the employee manual to meet the 30.06 wording for them to fire you for carrying at work, but it is required for it to contain the 30.06 wording for it to be criminal trespass.

This discussion pops up all the time. I'm not sure everyone is in agreement as to what the 100% answer is.

I would also wonder what constitutes written notice. I have been an employee at this company for 12 years and I have not been provided with a physical printed employee manual in over a decade. The employee manual is made available online and presumably is given in print form to new employees. Is an online copy "written notice"? There was no proactive provision of such notice in my work place.

[hirundo82]

I would also wonder what constitutes written notice. I have been an employee at this company for 12 years and I have not been provided with a physical printed employee manual in over a decade. The employee manual is made available online and presumably is given in print form to new employees. Is an online copy "written notice"? There was no proactive provision of such notice in my work place.

IANAL, but I imagine for it to be proven in court they would have to have people read over the employee read over the manual in class (such as employee orientation) and sign a form saying they have read and understand all the policies, and the handbook would have to contain the language exactly as it is in TPC Section 30.06. Otherwise I don't see how they could prove that you have read the notice.

[Purplehood]

But you are still fired...

[WildBill]

I would also wonder what constitutes written notice. I have been an employee at this company for 12 years and I have not been provided with a physical printed employee manual in over a decade. The employee manual is made available online and presumably is given in print form to new employees. Is an online copy "written notice"? There was no proactive provision of such notice in my work place.

IANAL, but I imagine for it to be proven in court they would have to have people read over the employee read over the manual in class (such as employee orientation) and sign a form saying they have read and understand all the policies, and the handbook would have to contain the language exactly as it is in TPC Section 30.06. Otherwise I don't see how they could prove that you have read the notice.

First, mr. 72 has admitted that his knows that this policy exists, so he has been given notice. Second, "they" don't have to prove anything.

The basic rule of Texas employment law is employment at will, which applies to all phases of the employment relationship - it means that absent a statute or an express agreement (such as an employment contract) to the contrary, either party in an employment relationship may modify any of the terms or conditions of employment, or terminate the relationship altogether, for any reason, or no particular reason at all, with or without advance notice. http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/pa ... neral.html

[mr.72]

I wasn't talking about being given written notice in terms of being fired, but in terms of being charged with criminal trespass.

Frankly I don't think even if I carried at work and someone found out about it, including my own manager, that I would be fired. What good would it do to fire a productive employee of over 12 years because he carried a firearm to work? I mean, unless I did some other stupid thing and the gun in my possession would give extra reason to fire me.

I am not particularly worried about getting fired but I have a pristine criminal record that I have no intention of risking.

[Keith B]

......Frankly I don't think even if I carried at work and someone found out about it, including my own manager, that I would be fired. What good would it do to fire a productive employee of over 12 years because he carried a firearm to work? I mean, unless I did some other stupid thing and the gun in my possession would give extra reason to fire me....

Don't count on it. We have a policy of no firearms on property at the company i work for. A couple of years ago one of our managers in Austin bought a new pistol at lunch, opened the trunk and showed someone. Someone else overheard them talking and called Asset Protection. They fired him for it and he had been an employee for almost 20 years with a pristine record.

[WildBill]

IANAL, but I imagine for it to be proven in court they would have to have people read over the employee read over the manual in class (such as employee orientation) and sign a form saying they have read and understand all the policies, and the handbook would have to contain the language exactly as it is in TPC Section 30.06. Otherwise I don't see how they could prove that you have read the notice.

The law is quite clear that "written notice" has to be identical to section 30.06. I haven't read what is in the "on-line" handbook, but if it has the correct language, he has been notified. The law says written notification means a card or other document. An on-line policy is a document. IANAL, but if it doesn't have the correct language that you probably wouldn't be arrested.

Has there been any test case that we are aware of, that an outdated 30.06-type sign has been ruled invalid?

I have not read of any cases in this or other forums. Perhaps that is good news that no one has been arrested. Hopefully, we will get a "parking lot bill" passed very soon.

Keith beat me to the comment about getting fired, but I have one more comment. Don't you think that the non-enforcable sign in the picture that you posted shows your company's desire to prevent handguns on their property? If so, why would they give you a pass when you clearly ignored their wishes. Let's say they gave you a pass because of your 12-year "productive" record. Then a person with 1-year "productive" record gets fired. How can the company defend that position? I don't know anything about you or your company, but I know what mine would do.

This topic has been discussed at length on previous threads. My post was not meant to judge or chastise you. As I have stated in the past, it all comes down to your decision of what you want to do. I just don't want to see you or any other CHL holder get fired. If you wish to chance it, that's your choice.

[hirundo82]

The law is quite clear that "written notice" has to be identical to section 30.06. I haven't read what is in the "on-line" handbook, but if it has the correct language, he has been notified. The law says written notification means a card or other document. An on-line policy is a document. IANAL, but if it doesn't have the correct language that you probably wouldn't be arrested.

Yes, but how are they going to prove that he read it? It is kind of like the argument that posted Section 30.06-compliant signs are very difficult to enforce practically unless every entrance is posted. It could create reasonable doubt that the person was not notified--in one situation a CHL holder may have walked through an unposted door, in another he may have not read all the employee policies on the website.

Neither posting all entrances nor getting signed acknowledgement are required for proper notification under Section 30.06, but without them it leaves open the possibility that proper notification was not given.