TexasCHLforum.com

JKTex wrote:

canvasbck wrote:BTW, to those of you who keep talking about carrying under MPA, the OP (I believe) was referring to a refinery/chemical plant where MPA doesn't allow an employee to store in their vehicle on the property. Only CHL's at those locations.

The OP never said that.

Assuming it is not a petro company, forget about it. Someone doens't like the new law that they obviously grossly misunderstand so they amended a policy in a way that can not be enforced because it has nothing to do with a CHL. The first time, IF they somehow search or find or whatever, and the person is not a CHL holder, said HR nitwit will have a semi-permanent deer in the headlights look... and they'll say "never mind" and go back and try again, and again will be unsuccessful.

I realize that the OP never said that, thats why I put the I believe part in there.

If it's not a chemical plant or refinery, then you are absolutely correct.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Why does it seem that some folks are more on the side of the companies who wish to restrict rights than the side of the citizens who's rights are being restricted?

I am sure that some of my posts come across that way, but I can assure you that I am not on the company's side of this one. I am just pointing out that the laws as currently written give the employer the power to make excercising those rights extremely difficult. I want to make sure that folks understand that if they choose to ignore a company's demand to provide the CHL information prior to bringing a firearm on site, that the law is not clearly on the employee's side of this one.

Look back at some of my other posts concerning the implementation of SB321 and you will see that I was involved in preventing the company that I work for from implementing some of the same nonsense.

BTW, to those of you who keep talking about carrying under MPA, the OP (I believe) was referring to a refinery/chemical plant where MPA doesn't allow an employee to store in their vehicle on the property. Only CHL's at those locations.

AEA wrote:Discreetly inform your employer he should READ the STATE LAWS before implementing "Policy" that is illegal.

Specifically the part where you are only REQUIRED to provide your License to LEO's when asked for identification.

I haven't noticed the word only in the statute. I don't believe that there are any statutes forbidding an employer making it a condition of employment. I know there is a confidentiality portion of the CHL statutes that prevents the government from disclosing your CHL information except in certain circumstances, but I haven't seen anywhere that private companies cannot request that information.

You are getting some bad advice from those who advocate that you ignore your employer's request. I worked with several other companies when we were developing our new firearms policy for our site to be in compliance with the new law. I can state with certainty that the companies who are requiring these declarations forms fully intend to terminate employees who store a firearm in their vehicle without disclosing the information. Some of the companies are planning on conducting some sort of random checks to ensure compliance. If your willing to be the test case, even though it is not expressly forbidden in the law for companies to require the information, knock your lights out.

The best answer for this (IMO) is to report your company's policy to the NRA-ILA to see if they are willing to challenge the employer's right to demand the information. They are asking people to report companies not following the new law so that they can challenge them BEFORE someone has to get fired and be the test case.