TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

KaiserB wrote:And what pray-tell is the event that the whistleblower exposed; other than the vehicle was overweight from an alleged paperwork error.

Perhaps we could explore Admiralty law in this case because Texas' coast is on the ocean.

The vehicle wasn't overweight from a alleged paperwork error. It was overweight. That is a violation of federal and state law which would subject the company to substantial fines if it's found to be a pattern of behavior. Furthermore, a truck driver can be fined personally for driving an overweight truck and is also exposed to charges of reckless endangerment, manslaughter or even murder if an accident results in death while driving an overweight truck.

Was the vehicle moved? (no, the driver did not move it and asked the load to be changed, thus no law was broken)

Was the vehicles weight changed before the company moved it from its lot? (unknown because the driver in this case was fired prior to the truck moving)

baldeagle wrote:

KaiserB wrote:Since one states "This person then informed the Officer that he got his Concealed Handgun License because drivers were required to accept large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods in full view of store customers. This person then went on to point out that this was thousands of dollars being carried for one to three days. Then this person further pointed out that the trucks did not have a safe, so the cash had to remain on his person."

I got my CHL to protect myself and family from harm, not as a pretense to secure myself at work because I transport large sums of money.

However in this case if the employee had not been duly informed of policy they are probably in the clear legally. Civilly it will depend on the actual damages incurred.

Good Lord, man, what country are you from? Can you not even find it plausible that he might have been in fear for his life because he was required to carry large amounts of cash for days on end? This has nothing to do with being a security officer. It has to do with self defense, which, last time I checked, it exactly what a CHL is for.

I am from a county, where I learned in the public school system that one should separate fact from emotion, when making a conclusion.

tacticool wrote:

dicion wrote:

KaiserB wrote: I am in a similar situation at my employer, where the policy states "NO GUNS" on the premises, which by TX penal code prevents me from having a gun, even in my car, because I have "received," according to the law, "notice". This one reason why the TX Parking Lot legislation is so important. The employer rights vs. the CHL rights are in conflict in many situations, such as yours and mine, and the FACTS do not always bear the outcome we desire.

Just read through this thread. Had to correct this grossly inaccurate statement above.

If your policy says 'NO GUNS' You can still carry there with a CHL Legally.
Yes, they can fire you, but it's not illegal unless the company policy has the _exact_ text as specified under TPC 30.06, and you are given a 'card or other document' with it on it. A company policy letter or book would count under that.

If they told you orally, no exact words are required.

They actually have the 30.06 text and require you to attend a yearly meeting to discuss the Policy and Procedures manual, where the HR person reads a statement regarding No Guns, No CHL, No guns while you commute to and from etc. So according to TX law they covered the bases. Some portions of this policy, such as No guns while commuting are obviously NOT binding under the law but can get you fired.

billv wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:KaiserB ... Did you even read this or did you just pull out things. MY HUSBAND WAS FIRED WITHOUT BEING TOLD NO GUNS. NO HE WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD NEVER TRIED TO ACT LIKE. THE COMPANY WAS PUTTING HIS LIFE IN DANGER MY MAKING HIM CARRY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CASH THAT WAS HANDED TO HIM BY PEOPLE HE DELIVERED THE COMPANY PRODUCT TO, THIS CASH WAS HANDED TO HIM IN FRONT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

HE WAS FIRED WITHOUT NOTICE!!!!

If he was violating any laws don't you think he would have left in handcuffs or with a ticket no. He left with the officer telling him to get an attoney

Texas is a Right to Work state. An employer can fire anyone for any reason at any time, with or without notice. Likewise, an employee can quit at any time for any reason with or without notice.

That said, the guy got screwed. He had a good lawyer, he should be able to use under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Google "whistleblower protection act texas" and see what magically appears. I am not a lawyer. Good luck.

And what pray-tell is the event that the whistleblower exposed; other than the vehicle was overweight from an alleged paperwork error.

Perhaps we could explore Admiralty law in this case because Texas' coast is on the ocean.

TxBlonde wrote:Think about the harm collecting thousand of dollars can be in bad neighborhood could. He could care less about protecting the money it was the thought that if someone stole that much from him they probably wouldn't want to leave any witness'

A counterpoint can easily be made to this argument, I agree one can get a CHL to protect themselves, however getting a CHL to protect oneself because ones chosen career requires a higher level of security than provide by the employer is a different story.

A CHL holder should not purposely invite (instigate) peril and then have an expectation of protection under the CHL laws, for example:

Yelling at a group of gang-bangers on a street corner at 3AM; instigating an issue, having a shootout, then expecting protect under the law because "you got your CHL to protect yourself in case you ever wanted to instigate a fight with gang members"

Think about a Brinks truck driver collecting money at a bank, does the driver having a CHL protect the cash and the driver or do the security agents operating the truck protect the cash and the driver?

Simply put without providing proper security for the driver your employer should have no expectation that you would risk your personal security to collect assets. In which case getting a CHL to protect yourself because my employer has a lack of security falls in a gray area of the law.

Should a 7-11 employee get a CHL to protect his/her employers premises? Granted a 7-11 owner may authorize his/her employees to use a gun in an emergency to protect the premise but it falls under very specific laws.

In any case the CHL was never meant to be a license to provide security.

KD5NRH wrote:

KaiserB wrote:Is said employee a commissioned security officer (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/cso.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)? One can not get a CHL and provide de facto security on behalf of an employer.

Since when is it acting as a security officer to carry at work?

Besides, he couldn't act as a security officer and drive at the same time; Facebook is way too distracting

Since one states "This person then informed the Officer that he got his Concealed Handgun License because drivers were required to accept large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods in full view of store customers. This person then went on to point out that this was thousands of dollars being carried for one to three days. Then this person further pointed out that the trucks did not have a safe, so the cash had to remain on his person."

I got my CHL to protect myself and family from harm, not as a pretense to secure myself at work because I transport large sums of money.

However in this case if the employee had not been duly informed of policy they are probably in the clear legally. Civilly it will depend on the actual damages incurred.

TxBlonde wrote:KaiserB ... Did you even read this or did you just pull out things. MY HUSBAND WAS FIRED WITHOUT BEING TOLD NO GUNS. NO HE WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD NEVER TRIED TO ACT LIKE. THE COMPANY WAS PUTTING HIS LIFE IN DANGER MY MAKING HIM CARRY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CASH THAT WAS HANDED TO HIM BY PEOPLE HE DELIVERED THE COMPANY PRODUCT TO, THIS CASH WAS HANDED TO HIM IN FRONT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

HE WAS FIRED WITHOUT NOTICE!!!!

If he was violating any laws don't you think he would have left in handcuffs or with a ticket no. He left with the officer telling him to get an attoney

Yes I read the post, yes I read the law, and yes I did not let emotions get in the way of the apparent facts. My apologies but the case has a lot of holes in it that will bite you when it gets before a judge.

As for the thousands of dollars, I assume the place of employment is not a plantation and thus the employee is not a slave [<---- this is sarcasm] Thus the employee can choose to work at a different place of employment that is safer or does not involve handling and transporting cash.

I am in a similar situation at my employer, where the policy states "NO GUNS" on the premises, which by TX penal code prevents me from having a gun, even in my car, because I have "received," according to the law, "notice". This one reason why the TX Parking Lot legislation is so important. The employer rights vs. the CHL rights are in conflict in many situations, such as yours and mine, and the FACTS do not always bear the outcome we desire.

TxBlonde wrote: After leaving the room but before I could leave the building four Police Officers approached me. The Police Officer in charge asks if This person if he was armed. He replied "yes". The officer then took possession of the fanny pack, which at the time also had his handgun in it. The officer then asked if he was licensed. This person replied yes and handed him my Texas Concealed Handgun permit. The General Manager at the time kept telling the Police Officer this person needed to be handcuffed, as the officer continued to ask this person questions. Still wanting the police to handcuff him the General Manager claimed that this person had signed a statement saying he wouldn’t carry a firearm. This person did not remember such a document and ask to see it but they could not produce such a document.

The General Manager states in front of the gathering management personal and other company employees that the company prohibits people from carrying a gun on their premise. This person then asked if anyone could point out the Penal Code Section 30.06 sign required by Texas to the Officer and himself. The Police Officer in charge directed his fellow officers to look for a 30.06 sign but they couldn’t find one.

Verbal communication is all that is necessary for an employer to ban employees (CHL or not) from having firearms on the premises.

TxBlonde wrote: This person then informed the Officer that he got his Concealed Handgun License because drivers were required to accept large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods in full view of store customers. This person then went on to point out that this was thousands of dollars being carried for one to three days. Then this person further pointed out that the trucks did not have a safe, so the cash had to remain on his person. The General Manager denied that drivers collected cash. The Manager of Human Relations contradicted him but he insisted he was right (This person now understands the human resources manager is no longer with the company). The Police Officer asks another driver standing nearby if they collected cash from customers. The driver confirmed that he was also required to accept cash, which embarrassed the General Manager either because of being caught in a lie or not knowing what is going on with the company.

Is said employee a commissioned security officer (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/cso.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)? One can not get a CHL and provide de facto security on behalf of an employer.

Sounds like this case is an unfortunate series of events, good luck with your case.