Carrying a firearm at WORK for intimidation only?!

phddan · #16

Hey ForbidInjustice,

Is that the store on 195?
Heck, I would go patronize them if they do open carry.

I am hoping it is a "wink, wink" policy, just to cover the GM's six, so to speak.
Unless he forbids them to keep ammo in the gun, sounds to me like he is giving his ok to protect themselves in a very open way.
Get him brushed up on the traveling laws, and encourage him to get his CHL.

Dan

KBCraig · #17

I salute the manager for doing this. I'm sure he knows that when faced with the choice of being dead and having a job, or being alive and not, everyone will choose life.

That said... his authorization carries no legal weight. Open carry (for non-LEO, non-security guard, non-sporting purpose, non-owner, non-manager) is UCW, even if the boss encourages it.

I know we've all seen gun shop employees openly carrying. They're also technically outside the law. Do I expect the police to make an issue at either a gun shop, or a high-crime AutoZone? No. But they could, because it's still illegal.

Just FYI, so that everyone can make an informed decision.

Kevin

stroo · #18

Studies show that people use guns in self defense somewhere between 750,000 and 2.5 million times a year. As far as I can figure, they actually shoot someone well under 50.000 times, probably more like 10,000 times a year in self defense. So intimidation works 80-90% of the time.

Having said that, this manager isn't saving his company from any liability and in fact may be increasing his company's liability risk. In addition, gun shops with employees open carrying are robbed every so often. So open carrying doesn't necessarily intimidate BGs. All in all, it seems to me to be a bad policy. Either encourage the employees to carry understanding that they may shoot or don't say anything.

ElGato · #19

This is a Giant Step forward and we should only hope that other company's will follow!

Isn't this what we have been wishing and fighting for?
How many of you would would like for your boss to tell you that you can carry at work?

G.C.Montgomery · #20

KBCraig wrote:I salute the manager for doing this. I'm sure he knows that when faced with the choice of being dead and having a job, or being alive and not, everyone will choose life.

That said... his authorization carries no legal weight. Open carry (for non-LEO, non-security guard, non-sporting purpose, non-owner, non-manager) is UCW, even if the boss encourages it.

I know we've all seen gun shop employees openly carrying. They're also technically outside the law. Do I expect the police to make an issue at either a gun shop, or a high-crime AutoZone? No. But they could, because it's still illegal.

Just FYI, so that everyone can make an informed decision.

Kevin

May be I'm reading this wrong but it seems the non-applicability clause for UCW would cover the employees of the AutoZone as well as employees of any business where the owner or general manager asks his employees to carry a weapon on our about their person if their primary responsibility is something other than that of a security guard.

===============================================
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who...

(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under
the person's control unless the person is an employee or agent of
the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility
is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or
property, in which event the person must comply with Subdivision
(5);
[/b]

ForbidInjustice · #21

G.C. -- I think you're reading it right, but as with most law, it appears to be ambiguous. Keywords there would be "primary responsibility" and "capacity". Not sure that it would hold very strongly as a defense in court. But, wouldn't it be the company whom the charges would be pressed against, not the individual employee?

Thanks for the thoughts, everyone.. I consider this a very important issue, and since my brother-in-law really isn't a 'gun guy', my words could be what ultimately sways him to act one way or another, and I want to be sure that he makes a responsible and sound decision based on what's best for his safety. I agree there was some CYA there as far as the manager's instructions not to draw. As long as the manager's job is safe, I guess that's all that matters, right? The idea of patrolling security guards isn't so far-fetched, but his store seems a little low-risk for that, due to the type of business. However, some crime is just unpredictable.

For some reason, the modus operandi of the criminals in Killeen is always way out there. Occasionally a place gets robbed, but more often, you'll hear of a random place getting robbed, a defenseless employee [or two] shot execution style, and even last July a pawn store owner's wife was robbed, then stabbed multiple times and the entire building he set on fire before fleeing out the back door. It's really hard to find a motive without doing some digging. That's why everyone must stay on their toes, because it can happen anytime, whether you sell socks, jewelry, guns, or car parts.

It doesn't help that the police force is terribly undermanned.

Great thoughts and ideas, everyone!

Sangiovese · #22

I wish my boss would tell me that I could carry but not draw my weapon.

I would always have it with me if I needed it. And if I needed it, I wouldn't care one bit about the fact that he had told me not to use it.

I don't want to risk my job just to have it with me for the extremely small chance that I may some day need it... But you can bet your booties that I would definitely accept losing my job in order to defend myself if that extremely small chance suddenly presented itself.

KBCraig · #23

G.C.Montgomery wrote:May be I'm reading this wrong but it seems the non-applicability clause for UCW would cover the employees of the AutoZone as well as employees of any business where the owner or general manager asks his employees to carry a weapon on our about their person if their primary responsibility is something other than that of a security guard.

The exemption is for someone whose primary duty is security, in which case they have to be a commissioned security officer.

===============================================
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who...

(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under
the person's control unless the person is an employee or agent of
the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility
is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or
property, in which event the person must comply with Subdivision
(5);
[/b]

You already highlighted the the important part: to be exempt from UCW, they must be an employee or agent of the owner, and their primary responsibility is security. But don't forget, it says they also must comply with Subdivision (5), which is:

PC 46.15(b)(5) holds a security officer commission issued by the
Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies,
if:
(A) the person is engaged in the performance of
the person's duties as a security officer or traveling to and from
the person's place of assignment;
(B) the person is wearing a distinctive uniform;
and
(C) the weapon is in plain view;

An employee who doesn't control the premises is UCW when carrying a gun, unless they're a commissioned security guard in uniform and carrying openly.

And of course an employee with a CHL who carried openly would be "UCW by a CHL holder", PC 46.035(a), for intentionally failing to conceal.

Kevin

phddan · #24

Well then, how do gun store workers get around the law? Surely the anti's would have raised cane about this by now.

Perhaps one solution would be to talk with the GM and explain that open carry isn't a legal option, but concealed carry is.

Dan

Venus Pax · #25

phddan wrote:Well then, how do gun store workers get around the law? Surely the anti's would have raised cane about this by now.

Perhaps one solution would be to talk with the GM and explain that open carry isn't a legal option, but concealed carry is.

Dan

Part of it might be that they're "displaying" their product by wearing it. It also might be that the antis would rather not visit many gun shops, and the rest of us don't have a problem with it.

GrillKing · #26

Venus Pax wrote: Part of it might be that they're "displaying" their product by wearing it. It also might be that the antis would rather not visit many gun shops, and the rest of us don't have a problem with it.

Wouldn't you say that if you open carry on business premises, i.e., the gun shop, the premises are under your control???

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who...

(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under
the person's control

nitrogen · #27

Sounds to me (and i'd love to get Chaz's view) is that legislatively, the intent wasn't there to ban this; it seems like it was just an oversight.

Having said that, even legislative intent never stopped people like our friend Chucky Rosenthal, so maybe it's something we should think about for 09?

zeroskillz · #28

My only thoughts really are that I'd rather not have anyone know that I have a gun. I think if I open carried all day in a retail type store, I'd be doing a lot of research into retention holsters. Also, if he wants to get a CHL, why not...couldn't hurt, I 'spect. Just encourage him to get some training in i
FWIW,
-Ted

KBCraig · #29

phddan wrote:Well then, how do gun store workers get around the law?

They don't get around the law, they just get away with breaking it.

And no, I don't think they should be penalized for doing so. I don't believe that legal/illegal are synonymous with right/wrong.

mcub · #30

As I set here killing lunch, at work, no gun, reading the back and forth about gun store workers....

It occurs to me the real answer to the question is how a pre-trail judge would interpret "under control". It is not worded "primary control", "total control", or any other phrase that specifies how much control a person would have to have. I suspect so long as the DA new a representative of the owner or an officer of a corporation would state the employee has control over any thing and consent the complaint would not fly.

But that would not stop a customer from saying "he put his hand on the gun and threatened me " That statement alone could get you in both Civil and Criminal trouble, and it would be real hard to defend, the old he said they said problem. So if I could, carry, I would conceal the carry.