Legal Carry in this situation? (work)

[xperthunter]

Basically, i need to know if anyone can point to any case law or other thing that would answer this definitively one way or another:

Facts:
1) Company policy says "an employee will not carry a weapon...". I have never been verbally told not to carry a weapon. IMO Concealed is Concealed and they dont know i have it, i hate the job anyway, sobeit if i get fired i didnt break any laws here.

2) Heres where it gets complicated:

I work for a company (Company A) and we have several buildings but one particular building has 3 physical (and mailing) addresses: 999 Ave A, 989 Ave A, 200 1st Street.

2.1) Company A owns 1/2 the building (999 Ave A) which has a firewall seperating it from internally connecting to any other address in the same building. There are no posted 30.06 signs on any opening to this address. By my understanding, it is legal to carry here.

2.2) A hospital corporation (C Medical) owns 1/2 the building encompasing the addresses 989 Ave A, and 200 1st street. These addresses are linked internally through a locking set of double doors, often kept unsecured. While this is owned by C Medical, Company A performs operations here, the hospital does nothing but rent it out, and provide maintinance. Still not a question. Sorry i'm getting to it.

2.3) the 989 Ave A location has a 30.06 sign inside the primary entrance , you cannot miss it unless you are blind should you walk in this entrance. It meats the legal requirements of a valid 30.06 sign.

3) I work in the 200 1st street side. I enter through one of 2 doors here neither of which are marked with a 30.06 sign. I do not go into the 989 Ave A location either through the internal passage or via the outside door. I do enter the 999 Ave A location regularly.

Am i within my legal right to carry at work?
Does the single side on one entrance prevent me from carrying?

IANAL but...

At a strip mall a 30.06 sign on one business does not prevent me from going in the next door. That said, this is all owned by the same company. If i was ignorant of the sign (because i never walked in that entrance) and came in the building, i would not be in violation because it was not clearly posted for me. But, since i know it is there, does it apply?

Thanks in advance!

[Ameer]

You said you don't mind losing your job so I won't

I think you can't legally carry in the hospital but if I understand your situation the rest sounds legal. I don't think there's any case law on 30.06 for simple cases, much less complicated ones, but I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even a law student.

[dicion]

You said you don't mind losing your job so I won't

I think you can't legally carry in the hospital but if I understand your situation the rest sounds legal. I don't think there's any case law on 30.06 for simple cases, much less complicated ones, but I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even a law student.

Why couldn't he carry in the hospital? Hospitals need 30.06 like anywhere else.

Plain answer: Carry in the places without the 30.06, don't carry in the place with it.
If it has a different address, it is logically a different premises. a 30.06 sign at one address does not count at a different address. I'd even go as far as to say that a 30.06 sign at one suite, at an address, does not count at a different suite at the same address, since they are different logical rental units.

[Ameer]

2.3) the 989 Ave A location has a 30.06 sign inside the primary entrance , you cannot miss it unless you are blind should you walk in this entrance. It meats the legal requirements of a valid 30.06 sign.

I thought this was the side with the hospital.

[RPB]

2.3) the 989 Ave A location has a 30.06 sign inside the primary entrance , you cannot miss it unless you are blind should you walk in this entrance. It meats the legal requirements of a valid 30.06 sign.
Thanks in advance!

First thought, viewtopic.php?f=53&t=34571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you're absolutely positive that "30.06 sign" doesn't say "Article 4413 (29ee)"
but says "Subchapter H, Chapter 411 Government Code" ?

[xperthunter]

The 30.06 sign is posted on the side owned by the hospital, but the hospital ownership is not really an issue. No hospital staff or activities take place there.

Yes the sign is compliant...I put it up in response to an incident at our location with the clientel that walk through that door exclusively.

[dicion]

The 30.06 sign is posted on the side owned by the hospital, but the hospital ownership is not really an issue. No hospital staff or activities take place there.

Yes the sign is compliant...I put it up in response to an incident at our location with the clientel that walk through that door exclusively.

Wait..

You put up a Compliant 30.06 Sign?!?

Dear god, why?!

If management told you to put up a sign, there's a bazillion different ways to put up a non-compliant sign.
If it was a problem with a certain individual, give them oral notice, or give them a card with 30.06 compliant verbiage on it, and make them sign something saying they recieved it... By god man, don't exclude all of us just because of one moron

[Hoi Polloi]

The 30.06 sign is posted on the side owned by the hospital, but the hospital ownership is not really an issue. No hospital staff or activities take place there.

Yes the sign is compliant...I put it up in response to an incident at our location with the clientel that walk through that door exclusively.

If you put it up and you had an isolated incident, do you have the authority (real or perceived) to now go quietly take it down?

[KC5AV]

Or quietly put a slightly non-compliant one in its place.

[xperthunter]

The nature of my work is domestic violence: The location in question is dedicated to counceling the abuser (as opposed to the victim) Means clients are generaly court ordered to be there, in many cases these individuals have protective orders against them, so they cant have a weapon period. The others, some 15% are voluntary (repeat) or family forced. But putting a weapon (that i dont control) in a room w/ 30 known violent people generally does not settle well on my mind.


The sign could easily be modified to be non compliant, and the affected clients would not be any the wiser. The same result could be had by adding a 30.06 disclaimer in the paperwork they sign and agree to.

By god man, don't exclude all of us just because of one moron

Uh, if i see any of you at my work, you would be best to turnin your CHL.

[cbunt1]

WARNING: UPON PROOFREADING THIS, I REALIZE IT SOUNDS LIKE A FLAME--I DON'T INTEND IT AS SUCH

One of the most common discussions we see here regarding the "beloved" 30.06 postings is whether a sign is compliant or not, and it is frequently followed by a discussion of "intent." That is to say that we often wonder whether the entity posting a non-compliant 30.06 notice is doing to to appease someone else, while not actually banning legal concealed carry by license-holders.

Well, the question of intent has been settled here. Clearly the OP intended to post a compliant 30.06 notice, thereby banning legal concealed carry by license holders.

To then try to find a way around the posting of a compliant 30.06 posting, where intent is clear is (to me) the height of hypocrisy.

If the entity intends to prevent concealed carry, it would be wrong to carry concealed. Period. Since we have a first-hand account of intent, and demonstrable action to support this intent, we have no hairs to split.

From a high-level point of view, the Law exists to support what we call in common language "right and wrong." The tomes we write as a society serve as an attempt to turn gray areas into black and white...but at the end of the day, we (generally) know what's right and wrong.

Now I'll come off my soapbox, step back, and analyze this for a bit.

First, 30.06 ONLY applies to license-holders. It does not apply in any way to an individual carrying a gun (or any other weapon) outside the terms of a CHL.

Second, although I don't know the FULL nature of your counseling operation, I can (in general terms) think of numerous situations where someone who is not directly an offender might visit the premises.

Third, I understand your position that having a weapon that I don't control in a room full of violent people doesn't set well in my mind. Notice the way I worded that...I'm saying that I don't like your having a gun in the room any more than you like my having a gun in the room...and I walked past a sign that prevented me from having mine--am I not entitled to "know" that there are no guns in the room, since you took the time and trouble to post a carefully worded legally compliant sign? To me, if you disarm me, you owe me some security and protection.

Finally, it sounds like the huge majority of your clientele would in fact be prevented from having weapons either by court order or previous conviction. Again, 30.06 wouldn't apply, and if they were in possession of a weapon then it would indicate to me that the court order and/or law means nothing to them. Clearly, they would never have a weapon in the room, so it should be a non-issue, right?

Sorry if this sounds a little "sharp"...but I can't help thinking that a 30.06 is functionally irrelevant in this case, and to work your way around your own posting through legal loopholes is hypocritical at best.

BOTTOM LINE:
If you truly want to prevent legally carried handguns on the premises, leave the sign in place, and leave YOUR gun in the car. If you don't have an issue with LEGAL concealed carry, swap the 30.06 sign for a gun-buster or an incorrectly worded sign and carry on. But remember: this is a case of what's good for the goose should be good for the gander...

[jordanmills]

The nature of my work is domestic violence: The location in question is dedicated to counceling the abuser (as opposed to the victim) Means clients are generaly court ordered to be there, in many cases these individuals have protective orders against them, so they cant have a weapon period. The others, some 15% are voluntary (repeat) or family forced. But putting a weapon (that i dont control) in a room w/ 30 known violent people generally does not settle well on my mind.


The sign could easily be modified to be non compliant, and the affected clients would not be any the wiser. The same result could be had by adding a 30.06 disclaimer in the paperwork they sign and agree to.

By god man, don't exclude all of us just because of one moron

Uh, if i see any of you at my work, you would be best to turnin your CHL.

Wait, so the people you're terrified of already can't own a gun and can't have a CHL... what exactly is a sign going to do to help the situation?

[Hoi Polloi]

If you don't want a legal firearm in a room of 30 people with anger management and aggression issues (I can see that), and you think that some of the people in the room could validly have CHLs and be carrying under its provisions, so you want to restrict them, I have a few ideas on how to do so.

1. Post at the meeting room instead of at the entrance to the building. I presume that you would not carry into these meetings, either, since you don't want a firearm in there. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to restrict valid CHL holders.

2. The statutes say "A license holder commits an offense if the license holder: (1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and (2) received notice that..." So, you can get effective consent to carry via employee manual or the like (maybe, if you have the authority to do so, even by printing out yourself the permission to do so) which means you can carry past the sign while they can't.

3. Above the valid sign, place something legal which restricts it to clients. Then they are the only ones being given notice. I am not a lawyer, but I would think this would be acceptable if done correctly.

4. Put the 30.06 notice on a flyer to be passed out to meeting attendees or in their sign-up paperwork.

[tacticool]

2. The statutes say "A license holder commits an offense if the license holder: (1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and (2) received notice that..." So, you can get effective consent to carry via employee manual or the like (maybe, if you have the authority to do so, even by printing out yourself the permission to do so) which means you can carry past the sign while they can't.

Here's what I understand. I hope OP will correct me if I'm wrong.
1. His employer has a policy prohibiting weapons. It's not 30.06 compliant, but carrying could get him fired.
2. There are 3 distinct parts of the building. Two are owned by his employer and one by a different company.
2. The 30.06 posted location is owned by the other company. Not his employer but maybe a client.

My thoughts as a lay person.
1. He's legal to carry on his employer's property (A) but can be fired if they find out.
2. If the 30.06 on the other company's property (C) is valid, he's not legal to carry there, even though he posted the sign, unless he gets permission from the other company that owns that part of the building.
3. A could find out if he tries to to get a waiver from C, maybe causing A's policy to become 30.06 compliant and/or OP being fired on the spot.
4. It sounds like he doesn't go on C's property much so 2 may not be a problem.
5. The internal door that connects C's property from Employer A's property needs better locks or access control, to prevent C's patients with a history of violence from entering A's property.
6. OP should look (keep looking) for a different job. Not only because of the 30.06 sign but he said he hates the job.

[xperthunter]

Tact i think you hit the nail on the head.

We are moving further from the issue. As the OP the question asked is am i legal to carry in the parts of the building (note they have different physical addresses, but are part of the same building) that have a different address from the one with the posting. Basically, 3 suits of a single building, my company operates in all 3, 2 are owned by another company but operate here. Part of the building owned by the other company has a compliant sign. Can i still legally carry in the other parts of the building?


BTW Thanks for all the responses so far!