Open carry: negative ramifications

[SlowDave]

Okay, this is the kind of stupid stuff I was worried about with the advent of open carry.

To date, my company has had a company policy (therefore, applicable to employees only) that you could not carry a firearm into a building nor on your person on the premises, but you could have one in your locked vehicle.

Now, with open carry, they didn't just post 30.07, they posted both 30.07 AND 30.06, but the announcement says they will continue to allow the possession of loaded firearms in vehicles. No big difference, right? Wrong.

• Previously, any non-employee could carry anywhere they wanted on the grounds, including in buildings. Now they can't. (Understanding this was almost surely an oversight, but still a change.)
• Previously, a person carrying in their car under the MPA could have a loaded firearm locked in their car. I don't see how they can post in such a way as will allow this now.
• Previously, a violation of the policy could result in at worst, dismissal from the company. Now, it will result in up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine (Class A misdemeanor)

Luckily, I am a concealed license holder and employee and therefore the main impact to me is the last item, and I don't make a habit of carrying into the building, but on occasion when my car has been dropped off to have work done on it or something similar, there may be situations where it is a possibility. All the way around, 0 benefit, significant deterioration of freedoms.

I think it's valid to attribute this re-inspection of carry laws and companys' positions on same to the passage of the open carry law. In fact, the announcement stated that explicity. Bummed.

[ScottDLS]

Okay, this is the kind of stupid stuff I was worried about with the advent of open carry.

To date, my company has had a company policy (therefore, applicable to employees only) that you could not carry a firearm into a building nor on your person on the premises, but you could have one in your locked vehicle.

Now, with open carry, they didn't just post 30.07, they posted both 30.07 AND 30.06, but the announcement says they will continue to allow the possession of loaded firearms in vehicles. No big difference, right? Wrong.

• Previously, any non-employee could carry anywhere they wanted on the grounds, including in buildings. Now they can't. (Understanding this was almost surely an oversight, but still a change.)
• Previously, a person carrying in their car under the MPA could have a loaded firearm locked in their car. I don't see how they can post in such a way as will allow this now.
• Previously, a violation of the policy could result in at worst, dismissal from the company. Now, it will result in up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine (Class A misdemeanor)

Luckily, I am a concealed license holder and employee and therefore the main impact to me is the last item, and I don't make a habit of carrying into the building, but on occasion when my car has been dropped off to have work done on it or something similar, there may be situations where it is a possibility. All the way around, 0 benefit, significant deterioration of freedoms.

I think it's valid to attribute this re-inspection of carry laws and companys' positions on same to the passage of the open carry law. In fact, the announcement stated that explicity. Bummed.

It would be a class C misdemeanor to CCW into your work now, unless you refused to leave after they discovered you, $200 ticket and you'd probably still get fired.

Unless they post some kind of conspicuous notice referencing 30.05 at the entrance to their parking lots, MPA carry would still be legal for non-employees.

[doncb]

...the announcement says they will continue to allow the possession of loaded firearms in vehicles...Previously, a violation of the policy could result in at worst, dismissal from the company. Now, it will result in up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine (Class A misdemeanor)

If the policy explicitly states that they will continue to allow the possession of a loaded firearm in vehicles, that pretty much says it all. They can't say it's OK in one sentence and then dictate a penalty they have no say in (fine, misdemeanor) in another. Well, they could, but then they look like fools. Maybe they are stating what the penalty "could" be. But for them to say what it will be has no place in a company manual. It isn't up to them. They can tell you what company discipline will be, but beyond that they have no say. Sounds like some idiot in HR is making things up.

[The Annoyed Man]

...the announcement says they will continue to allow the possession of loaded firearms in vehicles...Previously, a violation of the policy could result in at worst, dismissal from the company. Now, it will result in up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine (Class A misdemeanor)

If the policy explicitly states that they will continue to allow the possession of a loaded firearm in vehicles, that pretty much says it all. They can't say it's OK in one sentence and then dictate a penalty they have no say in (fine, misdemeanor) in another. Well, they could, but then they look like fools. Maybe they are stating what the penalty "could" be. But for them to say what it will be has no place in a company manual. It isn't up to them. They can tell you what company discipline will be, but beyond that they have no say. Sounds like some idiot in HR is making things up.

Seems like that's another way of saying "we don't mind if our employees carry, but we don't want strangers to carry."

[twomillenium]

I do not believe the company can prevent anyone, including employees, from carrying in their private vehicle in the employee or public parking lot. Unless, they qualify under one of the exceptions, detailed in the Law.

[C-dub]

A friend of mine at my former employer's has informed me that they have ordered both 30.06 and 30.07 signs. There have been none posted for the entire existence of the CHL law. My current employer already has compliant 30.06 signs at every entrance. I would be surprised if they do not also post 30.07 signs very soon and new 30.06 signs with the new verbiage. Oh well, such is the nature of my profession that is run by hypocritical liberals. No, I'm not in education, so I can still have it in the car in the parking lot. Small consolation, but it's something.

The public is receiving much more education about the laws this go around and due to OC are paying far more attention.

[longhorn86]

The public is receiving much more education about the laws this go around and due to OC are paying far more attention.

Thanks CJ

[jed]

...The public is receiving much more education about the laws this go around and due to OC are paying far more attention...

This was my biggest issue with OC. In the coming weeks or months we will see 30.06 signs popping up at places that may not even had a gunbuster sign before. I have no dog in the 30.07 fight, for I will not be OCing. But thanks to the OCers, we CCers will be barred from more places.

[C-dub]

The public is receiving much more education about the laws this go around and due to OC are paying far more attention.

Thanks CJ

I wasn't necessarily referring to OCT or OCTC, but rather the new law itself since it has been getting a lot of coverage in the news. It is a big change. Being out of sight for so long, many people have absolutely no idea how many people around them during their daily routine are legally armed. They still won't know, but it will no longer be "out of sight, out of mind."

[jed]

The public is receiving much more education about the laws this go around and due to OC are paying far more attention.

Thanks CJ

I wasn't necessarily referring to OCT or OCTC, but rather the new law itself since it has been getting a lot of coverage in the news. It is a big change. Being out of sight for so long, many people have absolutely no idea how many people around them during their daily routine are legally armed. They still won't know, but it will no longer be "out of sight, out of mind."

I was referring to anyone who wanted OC to become legal. All of the OC info meetings around the state is negative for CC. Actually, it seems the "right" to OC has infringed on the "right" to CC. Ironic isn't it? In the effort to expand one right is seems to be hurting both.

[SlowDave]

By my reading, if you post the property, it is posted 30.06. You can't post partial 30.06, and the sign has to be exactly word for word, nothing missing, nothing added. The sign says, in part,

"a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

So, I may stand corrected about folks carrying under the authority of the MPA, because 30.06 specifically forbids people carrying under CHL authority. I guess maybe that means it does not impact folks without a CHL who are carrying under the MPA. But, no matter what else the company says in their statement, it can't change the law. So, an employee carrying inside a building would definitely be in violation of 30.06/30.07 as far as I can see. You could hope that maybe they wouldn't press charges, but nothing prevents them from it.

I disagree with the poster who said it was a class C misdemeanor unless you are asked to leave and refuse. If you look at 30.06 (a)(2)(A) (as compared to (a)(2)(B)), note that it is A or B. So you commit the offense just by entering the property with proper signage. and per (d), the offense is a Class A misdemeanor. How do you get to the conclusion of it being a class C misdemeanor?

I believe there is an out for a CHL having a weapon in their locked car due to the parking lot law, which by the way, only applies to CHL holders. So, I guess the non-CHLs are okay with gun in the car due to 30.06/30.07 not applying to them at all and CHLs are okay with a gun in the car due to the parking lot law (LC 52.061). But either will be looking at a year +$4k fine if they are found with a firearm in a building. So, again, still big negative changes all brought to us by the open carry folks. :-(
---------------
PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) 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:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was
forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and
failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the
property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice
to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) “Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical
to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by
holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun
law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English
and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in
height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) <snipped

[SlowDave]

...the announcement says they will continue to allow the possession of loaded firearms in vehicles...Previously, a violation of the policy could result in at worst, dismissal from the company. Now, it will result in up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine (Class A misdemeanor)

If the policy explicitly states that they will continue to allow the possession of a loaded firearm in vehicles, that pretty much says it all. They can't say it's OK in one sentence and then dictate a penalty they have no say in (fine, misdemeanor) in another. Well, they could, but then they look like fools. Maybe they are stating what the penalty "could" be. But for them to say what it will be has no place in a company manual. It isn't up to them. They can tell you what company discipline will be, but beyond that they have no say. Sounds like some idiot in HR is making things up.

HR/The Company is not telling me what the fine is. The company statement is that they are going to post 30.06/30.07. The law tells me that violation of 30.06 is a class A misdemeanor and another section says that a class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4k fine.

So, previously, the whole thing was company policy, per the manual. Now they're going to post 30.06/30.07 and then it's a legal thing outside the company's hands. They can say we're posting this but we'll let you do x, y, and z, but in reality, that's the police and judicial system's decision at that point. The company still gets to decide whether they want to fire you if you're in jail, but yeah...

[denwego]

Did everyone forget the obvious? Big win from the 2013 session:

§52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

A company can't post a §30.06 sign in a parking lot and enforce it against an employee. It doesn't matter that it's trespass law or a criminal statute versus company policy, since §30.06 doesn't apply to people who have "effective consent" - §52.061 basically forces a company to grant its employees effective consent for trespass purposes and would give you a cause for civil action if they pushed the matter.

IANAL!

[SlowDave]

No, I didn't forget that. That's why I referenced it above (and in the original). But the parking lot law specifically applies to CHLs, not to those carrying under MPA authority. But if I'm reading correctly, the 30.06/30.07 specifically apply to CHL, not MPA. So, in the end, I think both are able to have a gun in the car.

Part of the problem is that I think 30.06/30.07 was written with the intention of posting a building. This place is a large campus with many buildings, roads, and parking lots. So gets a bit messy.

Again, the main big difference is the possibility of getting caught with a weapon in a building being a violation of company policy (for employees) vs. a Class A misdemeanor for everyone.

[stingeragent]

Slowdave. The law changes on that jan 1st. Now carrying past a 30.06 /07 sign is a class C, 200 fine. Bumps up IF you refuse to leave.

As to your last sentence, if it is posted 30.06 and the company reports you, you get the companies punishment as well as the law. You are not exempt from the law because your an employee. So if they have a 30.06 sign posted, it doesn't matter if your an employee or a customer, you can't carry.