TexasCHLforum.com

LedJedi wrote:

Lodge2004 wrote: A firearm is not a talisman that wards off evil.

oh great... NOW you tell me after I already bought this on ebay

Well LedJedi, based on inner city murder statistics; you should have known that thing wouldn't work! Seriously...nice way to inject some good humor on the thread.

Can't put it much better than that.

I'm gonna go kinda quick here...not going to split hairs on fine details, gotta get back to work in a minute. So please, no arguments from those who have nothing to do all day but play on the internet and google every Texas law out there. These are general truths:

#1. It should be stated in your personnel manual. HR should have a signed paper from you saying that you agree to follow all of the policies contained therein, blah, blah, blah. This is the ideal way to communicate it and it makes it easy on both sides.
#2. If they don't have that, they may have to prove that they have a policy and communicated it to you. (usually not hard, but not quite as clean as #1)
#3. If they have a big sign posted somewhere noticeable (not talking 30.06 here) like in the breakroom, then refer to #2. Proving you were subject to it may only require putting another employee on the stand and having them testify that the sign has been there forever will make a judge or jury think that only an idiot would miss it. If that's all that's required for federal workplace posters is to post it in a conspicuous place, chances are it'll work for the employer notifying you of anything else.
#4. Assuming none of the above apply, make sure you don't work somewhere that's covered automatically under law (school, horse track, courtroom, etc)., or see a compliant 30.06 sign on the door. In that case, a policy would be redundant.
#5. In Texas, employers can fire you any time for any reason or no reason (assuming you don't have a contract). So be careful either way. If they fired you for a policy that they didn't have and you can prove it, or if you think they violated your rights, then you may or may not have remedies under the law. If they fire you and leave the reason blank, then good luck with your job search.

Slight side note: our personnel manual says that illegal weapons are prohibited in the workplace. In that context, if there is no compliant 30.06 sign (there isn't), I'm not carrying a police asp or brass knuckles(I'm not), and I'm CHL (I am), then I'm LEGAL with my pistol, but subject to the same rules as being in public. No displaying, no printing, etc. Make sure you check for the distinction between legal vs. illegal weapons in your handbook if you have one. Also remember that in that context, a perfectly legal weapon in my hands would be illegal in a non-CHL holder's hands. Checkmate, the boss wins.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And to this day, I see nothing whatever wrong with what I did.

Agreed. I would have done the same thing, Frankie. While it would have been an infraction if you got caught, thankfully it never came to that. That goes back to taking a calculated risk, and some circumstances should warrant it, and some don't. Every now and then I don't put on my seatbelt when I drive from one store to another across the street. Could I get caught or hurt? Yep. That's when the risk-to-consequence ratio comes in. I see it far less likely that I would be ticketed or hit by driving across the street, so sometimes I don't buckle my seatbelt to drive 50 feet. Legally, should I? Absolutely. if a cop were to ticket me for that, I pay a ticket. So, the consequence is much less severe than violating a 30.06 posting. Actually, the risk that I would get T-boned by another vehicle has a far greater consequence than handling a Class C misdemeanor through the mail.

With all that said, you have a good example which I think bolsters my point. I do think there are times and places where you have to make that decision. Those decisions should be made to cover the gap where the law ends and your gut feeling begins. So, kudos for your example. I don't think however, that strolling past an employer's 30.06 sign like it's some goofy company newsletter has the same merit.

That's still not a good comparison. You could lump murder and jaywalking together if you took that rationale far enough. Both are technically a legal infraction, but different. What would it take to make you jaywalk? What about kill with justification? How about without justification? You should have three totally different answers for those questions. I find the argument (if it has been put this way) "since nobody is perfect, we'll do what we want" rather absurd, no offense.

Sure, running a stop sign won't make you a criminal, but try not taking care of the ticket and watch it escalate into the start of your criminal record. Any law you break has a consequence if you're caught, some more severe than others. Choose your battles wisely.

I think every person on here would understand taking a chance and violating a 30.06 sign when threatened, but the "cuz i can" attitude in the absence of that threat is a bit reckless in my opinion.

Jason73 wrote: Do I carry past 30.06 signs on occasion and ignore my employer's no-gun policy? YOU BETCHA! Does this make me a criminal? No it does not.

Jason, you have some very valid points. People bend the laws everyday, and the magnitude and/or consequences of those laws will vary. Traffic offenses are commonplace, but I would temper that comparison with the notion that few traffic offenses would result in a felony charge (usually that means you are up to something else and were too dumb to know your tail lights didn't work when they found the 10 pounds of crack under the seat, etc). The fact of the matter is that there IS a consequence to having a felony charge brought against you, the IS a risk of you losing your CHL and not getting it back, and there IS a risk of that decision to carry past the 30.06 sign haunting you 20 years down the road when I run your background check after you've sat across my desk and told me that you are the best man for the job. Whether you are the best man for the job will be irrelevant; the guy with the clean record with get the job, and not you (all other things being equal). That's good advice from a gun-loving HR professional. Take it or leave it, but you'll be wise to take it.

Does violating an internal policy make you a criminal? No. It might get you fired, but not a criminal. But, an internal policy and a 30.06 are two different things. One is an internal policy, and one is a statute that has a legal consequence. Will carrying past a 30.06 sign make you a criminal? You're right, it does not. You getting caught for doing it and getting convicted makes you a criminal. Good luck with your defense on that one. What will you say? Saying "I didn't see the sign" is like "my dog ate my homework". What will be your next defense? "The guy in accounting was looking at me wierd; I felt threatened". Neither will be justifiable. Assuming the sign is compliant, you WILL LOSE. You can even go dig up Johnny Cochran to defend you if you want, things won't be as good for you as they used to be. Your best bet is to hope to get off on some technicality.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the point at which you choose to violate the law....for whatever reason. Rancher put it well that you need to assess the risk vs. consequences...which is what life is all about anyway. Should you choose to risk it, make sure the circumstances are warranted...make sure you have taken into account everything you could lose before saying to yourself..."I have to carry here". Should you choose the quick, testosterone-filled ideology that the second amendment plus your CHL gives you carte blanche to do whatever, it's only a matter of time before you lose it. Don't join that trash heap. It's one thing to take a calculated risk, and another to say that you have no regard to a 30.06 posting. Most of the 30.06 postings are at hospitals and Taco Cabanas anyway, so what about the 99.9% of places you CAN carry? Those signs are in a very low percentage of businesses.

Please don't take anything I've said as harsh....just calculate your decisions carefully, and know when your potential exposure to harm outweighs the consequenses of a felony conviction before you do it. We may need you one day to be the guy who was in the right place at the right time, and was trained to do the right thing. You have something Suzanna Gratia Hupp didn't have...the power to carry almost anywhere. Treasure that. What if the next Luby's incident happens and you are there, powerless to change the course of history because you were stripped of your privilege to carry years before at some dumb job? Regrets are all you will carry from that point forward. I look at CHL holders almost like an invisble army, blended into the crowds, with the choice (not an obligation) to intervene if the situation is serious enough. I esteem my privilege as not just for self-defense; but one where I can defend the innocent if I were to be at the next "Luby's incident". While we all may get our CHLs for different reasons, I can say that I would die trying to save you or anyone else if that were to happen again. You may not be that way, and that's ok. But ask youself...are you prepared to be kicked out of the invisible army also? Maybe you have your CHL strictly for yourself or immediate family, and there's nothing wrong with that. But there is such a thing a doing right by your fellow man...and to me, that includes taking out shopping mall terrorists, or whatever you want to call them. I take COMFORT that there may be people like me walking around the mall, and that some nut won't be emptying his ninth clip before the cops can get there to intervene. That's a GOOD thing.

A lifetime of being smart and careful will preserve your options. Quick decisions and reckless abandon will take them away. Preserve your options for the future unless you are facing a direct threat. This will prevent you from joining the heap of those who lost their options and can't get them back...stay in the invisible army, we need you!

Rancher, that's about as balanced of a viewpoint as you can get. Everything in life is about making decisions, weighing options, and assessing risks. While none of us would advocate breaking the law (I think), the way you explained yourself is refreshing. I haven't carried past a 30.06 sign (that I know of), but I have made risk assessments like what you described and gone unarmed. As I said in a previous post a while back, we should all be careful to guard ourselves from unnecessary paranoia if we have to temporarily disarm to comply. I can also understand taking the risk not to disarm if you see a greater liklihood of being in real danger. It's all about weighing those factors out, and making a reasonable, well-thought decision. You should feel naked without your seatbelt on; not so with your gun. I think there's a big difference between being prepared and aware, and being so paranoid that you can't even check the mail without thinking that you're a soldier behind enemy lines without your weapon. Life is all about B-A-L-A-N-C-E.

kyreb wrote: They searched our complex here in houston a few weeks ago...then put on a demonstration of the dogs in our auditorium just to prove their capabilites...

Jeez, now those diehard CHLs working for unreasonable companies will have to start lining their lockboxes with coffee beans to throw off the dogs!

Eventually somebody will try that....just watch.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: I actually think the article was referring to some version of a parking lot bill rather than Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine does not say anything one way or the other about anyone's right to carry, times, places, etc. It only refers to the actual use of force in self defense.

Agreed. The job pays the bills, and it's way to important to toss away.

I have amended this reply after re-reading the bulletin today. Frankie, you may be right. It might be the premesis issue, I dunno for sure, as it doesn't say. I can only imagine that the waters are muddied whether it's the castle doctrine or the premesis battle, or a combination of the two.

I do not disagree of your interpretation of the Castle Doctrine, except that I would add that it does reference places. With that said, without a 30.06 sign, carrying is a internal policy issue and not a legal one.

I think this group might be thinking that workplace shootings will go up if laws are passed that allow guns on a work premesis, regardless of justification. Perhaps that's a strategy of workplace sterilization, hence the lobbying efforts.

We'll see. As we all know, the anti-gun people are so level-headed and logical in their thought process.

Interesting topic, I appreciate all points of view and think this can be a constructive dialogue. Skiprr, nice points, and I agree that our fellow poster should not feel attacked or that he needs to run off. There IS a difference between laws and rules. In this context, breaking laws with get you in trouble with the cops. Breaking rules will get you in trouble with HR. Let's start from there, because we are talking about both.

To be fair to hkshooter, we probably learn more by asking questions in the context of the "difficult hypothetical". This allows us to discuss and think ahead. Since life doesn't happen "inside the box", why should all of our questions be inside the box? That's a good way to remain ill-prepared. I have learned so much from this site just by reading and discussing; much more than any CHL class. With that said, let's salvage the merits of the original question without implying that we are above the law or want to break it.

Now for my two cents, which may raise more questions thans answers. I am an HR professional with an advanced degree and two HR certifications that weren't easy to get. With that said, I'm no smarter than anyone else on here, but I'm no dummy in my field either.

Today I received a package in the mail from the largest HR organization in the US. I get them about once a month, and they are filled with everything from newletters, to magazines, training materials, etc. While flipping through it, I noticed an article that basically stated "Laws passed in 13 states render company anti-weapon policies unenforceable" (very paraphrased). It went on to say that this particular HR organization has helped lobby against the same legislation being passed in 12 other states successfully. I assume this is referring to the castle doctrine, but it did not say. Interesting read, though.

I am not advocating breaking the law, nor am I advocating violating any company policy. But I will say this - if an HR organization (which almost has to be anti-gun by nature of its trade) puts out a bulletin like this, then obviously its no longer as cut and dry as it used to be. I'm not talking about violations of law, I'm talking about policy violations. The waters are obviously muddied to the point that in several states, the RIGHTS of citizens (some of which are expanded into an additional priviledge with a CHL) may trump company policies. The answer at this point is we really don't know until it goes to court a few times, gets appealed a few times, and we find out ultimately who has the trump card by the highest court. I claim to not know who will win this one.

As a footnote; I would always suggest always playing it safe when carrying. It's easy to get so paranoid that you think you are going to get attacked the minute you disarm. Not saying anyone here has said that, but I have caught myself feeling that way and then think to myself that I didn't carry for three decades and everything turned out okay. Kudos to the point above where there is a difference between defending yourself and not breaking a law. As such, we should all recognize and control any temporary paranoia that may result from complying with a 30.06 sign. With all of that said, let's continue to discuss this...it's a worthy topic and it will help us all at the end of the day to hear each other's input.