TexasCHLforum.com

So here it is. I work as a paramedic for the city of austin. As you can imagine there is a city policy prohibiting me from having a firearm in my vehicle effectively disarming me 60-70% of the time. I work nights on the east side of austin in high crime areas. Hopefully the parking lot bill will solve this part of my dilemma. I have a broader question for you all. My employer being a public entity (local government) they are legally prohibited from preventing citizens from carrying on city property as you well know. (I know technically they can post 30.06 signs and they are not enforceable) How does my employer have the right to prevent me an an employee of a public entity from carrying a weapon in a place where they cannot prevent the public? Now this is more of a general question as it would be impractical for me to carry on duty with all of the places I am required to respond to that can legally post 30.06 signs, I am more curious about other city employees. Although most other city employees dont have patients pull out butcher knives like my call last week, luckily I had my partner and 4 firefighters there to subdue the patient but it could have turned out much worse and its certainly not the first time its occurred.

Personally I would like to see legislation that would allow me as a paramedic to carry anywhere a LEO can while in the course of my duties (hell even security guards can carry) but I am not naive enough to believe that this would happen.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

I would think it would be the same as any other company, you would not be in violation of 30.06 but they could (and probably would) terminate you as it is company policy.

I get that but I dont understand why we treat public entities the same as private employers I guess is what Im getting at.

The answer to your question is

GC §411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business.

It is not a criminal offense to carry with a CHL on public property that is not an off-limits place such as a school.

However, do not expect every LEO to know that. If a LEO thinks you need to be arrested, you're going for a ride.

I have no clear thoughts on armed EMTs, but I know that there would be a huge furor if arming them were proposed. Many medical personnel are anti-RKBA, and most big-city governments and police chiefs are also.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:The answer to your question is

GC §411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business.

It is not a criminal offense to carry with a CHL on public property that is not an off-limits place such as a school.

However, do not expect every LEO to know that. If a LEO thinks you need to be arrested, you're going for a ride.

- Jim

Huh? As citizens and CHL holders...most of us know this, but an officer (who's job it is to enforce the law is not supposed to be aware of it).

When I go to the optometrist...I expect him to know his job. When I do a mechanical drawing my employer expects them to be right. Is it really too much to ask LEO to "check" if they don't know (instead of arrest).

I recognize there are a lot of laws on the books...and that new ones are made all the time, but it isn't right to arrest first (and see if you were right later). Is there a new standard I am not aware of? (When in doubt... arrest)!

Reality is what it is.

I have reasons to believe that LEOs are not up on every detail of current law. I can't do much about it except in the jurisdictions where I live and have some kind of voice.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Reality is what it is.
I have reasons to believe that LEOs are not up on every detail of current law. I can't do much about it except in the jurisdictions where I live and have some kind of voice.

- Jim

Yup, and it will continue to be this way...as long as there are not "penalties" (applied) for LEO making bad arrests, DPS taking 120+ days to issue CHL's, etc......

I dont know any of this for sure but this is based on a buddy of mine who is also a medic (but he works for a private company.)
He said that you would have to be a "tactical medic" to carry a gun while acting as a state licensed medic. I'm not sure exactly what the law is but i think it is related with the state health department.
You might consider asking what the department's policy is if you became a tactical medic.

I am currently assigned as a medic for the eod/tactical units, I assure you that while most tactical medics receive the same monthly weapons training as the other team members (SWAT officers) I know of no departments who arm their medics who are not also commissioned peace officers. This is beside the point and I am up on all of the relevant legalities. I was more wanting to have a broader discussion on the ability of a public entity to disarm public servants such as secretaries, firefighters, librarians, paramedics, sanitation engineers, while being prevented from disarming the general public. In my mind while everyone should have the right to protect themselves to and from work by keeping a firearm in their vehicle, If an employer cant legally ensure a "gun-free" workplace (which I dont think anyone can ever ensure a place as gun free BTW) then they should be legally prevented from disarming their employees. Does that make sense? I think for the same reason that public entities are held to a different standard from private businesses in regards to posting enforceable 30.06 signs they should be held to a different standard than private employers when it comes to preventing their employees from carrying a firearm at work. Am I totally off the wall in that belief?

What you are saying is logical, but we are talking about government here.

Public entities have the legal power to penalize their employees for carrying arms, while at the same time not providing effective protection for their employees.

I don't make the rules. People that you and I most likely voted for make the rules.

- Jim