TexasCHLforum.com

tbryanh wrote:So if the company handbook says no firearms allowed and you are caught carrying, it is a Class C misdemeanor. If you are told to leave at that point and you refuse, it becomes a Class A misdemeanor. Is this correct?

No. You are confusing two things, criminal statutes and civil statutes.

If a company handbook, in written form, simply states that "no handguns are allowed to be carried by employees while at work" then all that has happened is that the employer has conveyed to the reader of the handbook his expectations that continued employment depends on the employee complying with the handbook admonishments. The consequence of violating this handbook statement may result in being fired, but nothing criminal.

If, however, the handbook, as a document under 30.06 and 30.07, has written in it...“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

or...“Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly”

and the employee is required by some mechanism of employment to read the handbook, then that employee has been properly notified under 30.06 and/or 30.07 and failure could not only mean termination of employment but also a Class C (and possibly Class A) criminal trespass.

tex

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My employer's policy says no guns, and then says that the penalty for violating the policy is punishment "up to and including termination". The policy is also technically in violation of Texas law since it says that you can be fired for having a gun in your car in the parking lot. Not sure if this alone would invalidate the entire policy under Texas law.

I am not planning to carry regardless because I like my job (at least most days). But I'm curious, Is this valid legal notice under 30.06 and/or 30.07?

They have no legal muscle to stop you from having your gun in their parking lot by threat of statutory violation and consequent criminal or civil punishment.

Their only muscle is with the employer/employee relationship where, in Texas, by way of published employment practices, they do swing a big sword.

tex

tbrown wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I agree with you, but I find no moral obligation for the People (through the government) to grant a criminal sanction, on someone carrying on your property. Especially if you don't even notice and it therefore has no bearing on your enjoyment or exercise of your right to do what you wish thereon. That's why there is no 30.06 criminal equivalent in most states. And even in Texas, you can't exercise your private property "rights" if the person "violating" them is a cop, or Fed, or your Employee in a car on your parking lot.

If the property owner tells an individual to leave, the individual should be legally obligated to depart. In addition, the penalty should be the same for all trespassers, including police if they don't have a valid warrant or exigent circumstances.

A person carrying a concealed gun should have no more or less rights than a person carrying a concealed rosary, a concealed cell phone, or with a concealed piercing.

A person openly carrying a gun should have no more or less rights than a person openly wearing the hijab, openly wearing an Obama shirt, or openly displaying their toes.

A person carrying a concealed gun has no more or less rights than a person carrying a concealed rosary, or cell phone or concealed piercing. But those rights do not exist on the property of an owner who has prohibited a concealed handgun, rosary or piercings on his property. There is no right to violate. In other words, those rights are limited with respect to the ownership sovereignty doctrine.

tex

ScottDLS wrote:
I agree with you, but I find no moral obligation for the People (through the government) to grant a criminal sanction, on someone carrying on your property. Especially if you don't even notice and it therefore has no bearing on your enjoyment or exercise of your right to do what you wish thereon. That's why there is no 30.06 criminal equivalent in most states. And even in Texas, you can't exercise your private property "rights" if the person "violating" them is a cop, or Fed, or your Employee in a car on your parking lot.

It's a technicality but you keep falling into the trap. One HAS no right that extends to a cop or Fed, or an employee in a car in YOUR parking lot because those are enumerated exclusions to the right. There is no such right. So a cop or Fed or Employee sitting in his car in YOUR parking lot is violating NOTHING because no right exists (in this case) that includes them to violate.

The People are under no obligation (through the government) to grant anything. WE.....THE PEOPLE, through the very mechanisms included in the constitution that we hold to protect us....CHOOSE...to restrain ourselves and our rights. We VOLUNTARILY limit our otherwise anarchisticly unchecked "rights" in order to live together as a society. WE did this to ourselves. Not the Congress of the United States. Not the Congress of the State of Texas. WE accepted the invitation to cast a vote for our representatives knowing full well and VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTING the possible outcomes in exchange for the privilege of living here.

The ease with which WE can point the finger of blame at our representatives acts like a narcotic dulling our senses and fogging our realization that the fault lies with WE not THEM. And until WE take our vote more seriously WE have no choice other than to simply enjoy the rights and privileges we may still have remaining while longing for the next vote in hopes that it arrives sooner than the next loss of liberty.

tex

ScottDLS wrote:Where in the Federal Constitution does it require that a State make it a criminal offense for you to do something that a property owner is not even aware of?

Natural (God given) rights? Most can be summed up by the Ten Commandments, and I don't recall the one about Thou Shall Not Carry a Hidden Sword... Maybe Moses dropped that one when he saw his People worshiping the golden calf.

You're confusing a belief that God has endowed you with certain rights and that those divinely endowed rights are what gives you the right to carry a gun (I also believe that, but it is just that, my belief and carries no legal weight in our democracy nor is it a part of the construction of the constitution. It may be the inspiration for but it is not the statutory language of it) with the rights that are ACTUALLY bestowed upon you by the constitution of the country you have voluntarily decided to live in! It is the document called The Constitution, as revealed to us by the venerable mystics sitting on the Supreme Bench, may their wisdom flow, that gives us our defendable (in our democracy) rights.

The "what they don't know won't hurt them" argument is disingenuous if law abidance is the moral of the goal. You have no intrinsic right, divinely endowed or constitutionally bestowed, to enter upon another man's private property against his consent. And if "I'll have what I believe are my God given rights despite what any one says" is the mentality then that doesn't belong in a constitutional democracy. The battle was fought and won already, over 200 years ago....and the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC version of government won.

I'm sure it was in all of the newspapers.

"One's right can not be claimed to have been infringed if one does not possess that right in the first place. ...", The Many Inspired Sayings of TheTexan, Vol. 2, pg 304

Uncle Tex

Kenneth77 wrote:This is just me but i would be finding another job , i carry all day every day and i am getting to the point where i could care less about sings because why the heck should i respect their rights when they dont respect mine !

So are you saying that your right to carry a gun trumps the owner's right to control his own property and stop you from carrying a gun?...your constitutional right is more "right" than his?

Read this carefully...YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to carry your gun onto another person's property if he chooses that he doesn't want you to, (assuming he has executed his constitutional right properly, vis a vis 30.06/30.07). In fact your supposed constitutional right ENDS and no longer exists at the door of the owner who exercises his constitutional right. This is a case of two people's rights having to be reconciled so that each person''s rights are respected.

Therefore that owner who post's 30.06 or 30.07 is not stomping on your right because you then have no right.

tex

twomillenium wrote:Oral communication to the employee by the employer is notification just as a 30. sign is notification. Walking past or ignoring the sign is a Class C misdemeanor, only when you do not immediately leave when told to do so is it a Class A misdemeanor. So I believe it would be a Class C if the employee left when told to do so or if he did not loose his job it may be considered a Class A if the employee returned and still was carrying. The employee may become unemployed, but the employer would not be very smart if this was not in writing instead of just oral.

If it can be shown at trial that he refused to leave after having been given 30.06 or 30.07 notice as per Subsection (c) of those Sections. Returning later with a gun after having been orally notified would certainly be considered refusing to leave at trial.

tex

bblhd672 wrote:Different scenario at my workplace: Company's Employee Handbook has "no guns allowed" in it, however the owner of the company gave verbal authority to carry to LTC holders.

The "no guns allowed" in the handbook has muscle behind it because of two things...

1. 411.203 doesn't bestow a right but rather DOES NOT RESTRICT an employer from prohibiting an employee from carrying in his business. It does not prescribe how the employer makes that known to the employee, so a handbook is not specified and thus, presumably, an acceptable method of notification to employees.

2. In Texas the employer can terminate the employment of a person for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason, as long as the reason does not violate some other unlawful employment practice.

So simply because an employee is under threat of termination due to failure to "PLEASE" the employer would stop most employees from violating company policy.

In addition, had the employer orally conveyed this policy to the employee, or used 30.06/.07 language in the document or handbook, the employee would also be in a status of having been notified per 30.06/.07 and thus under those statute's authority.

The employer giving verbal authority for LTCs to carry gave his consent and thus nullifies the prohibitive effects of 30.06/.07.

tex

NNT wrote:But does that carry over to company vehicles off site with only the driver, no other clients or coworkers, as a legal issue, or just an HR issue? Is the vehicle considered 'premises'?

No, a company vehicle is not considered a "premises" under the several definitions in the LTC laws. But they don't need to be because company vehicles are dealt with specifically.

Government Code
411.203 clarifies that "this subchapter" (411) 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."

Ok, so 411 does not prevent or limit employer's rights ON THE PREMISES OF THE BUSINESS.

Now, let's go to the Labor Code 52.061. Since, so far in 411, no employer rights have been restricted ON THE PREMISES OF THE BUSINESS, 52.061 DOES RESTRICT the employer from prohibiting an employee "...who holds a license to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Ok, so the employee CAN NOT BE RESTRICTED at least as far as the EMPLOYER is concerned, in the parking lot in a privately owned vehicle.

Finally, 52.062 tells us that this employer restriction does not apply to a vehicle owned or leased by the employer.

But!!!!! There is an exception to this exception.

52.062 states..."...unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee’s duties;" at which time the employer is restricted again.

So, yes, an employer may restrict an LTC employee from carrying in a company vehicle except in one situation.

tex

Trivera wrote:Currently at my job we no 30.06 or 30.07 signs but the manager says we aren't allowed to carry at work... Should I go against his words cause they don't have any signs up or listen and don't carry at all

Two considerations here...

1. 411.203 allows an employer to be free from an prohibition from restricting an employee from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business. Nothing is mentioned about open carry but this is almost certainly an legislative oversight. Your employer may tell you what you can and can't do regarding carrying handguns on the premises of his business.

2. The mere fact that your employer tells you that you can not carry on the premises of the business means that you have received 30.06/.07 notification (initial notification) making it a criminal Class C misdemeanor to enter onto or remain on the premises with the handgun. If prosecuted at trial and it can be shown that you refused to leave after being warned again to leave, that Class C can be upgraded to a Class A. It is arguable that the initial oral notification and subsequent refusal to leave (as demonstrated by your refusal to comply with his wishes and ignoring the notification and carrying at work anyway) might be qualification for the Class A in the first place.

AND........

Since you are committing a crime by ignoring the oral notification you are diminishing your legal options at trial, should you be involved in a shooting at work, such as presumption of reasonableness regarding immediate necessity, etc.

Lesson here....

Stay legal. The "I would rather be alive than legal" argument carries with it many legal pitfalls.

tex