Employers and CHL Discovery

austin · #16

I am a bit confused.

They have a no weapons policy but wanted a photocopy of your CHL?

If they have a no weapons policy, then why would they care about your CHL?

I would think it would be the other way around. You have a CHL and you want to carry, so they ask for a copy for their records and let you carry.

They have no reason to see your CHL.

135boomer · #17

austin wrote:I am a bit confused.

They have a no weapons policy but wanted a photocopy of your CHL?

If they have a no weapons policy, then why would they care about your CHL?

I would think it would be the other way around. You have a CHL and you want to carry, so they ask for a copy for their records and let you carry.

They have no reason to see your CHL.

That makes sense to me.

seamusTX · #18

The whole thing is bureaucratic lunacy at its finest.

- Jim

Mithras61 · #19

austin wrote:I am a bit confused.

They have a no weapons policy but wanted a photocopy of your CHL?

If they have a no weapons policy, then why would they care about your CHL?

I would think it would be the other way around. You have a CHL and you want to carry, so they ask for a copy for their records and let you carry.

They have no reason to see your CHL.

It's busibodyitis gone wild. They want a copy of your CHL so they can make sure and tell you not to carry on the job, and document that even though you have a CHL you've specifically been informed that they will not permit employees to be able to defend themselves in the event of someone committing an illegal act (from which they will make no effort to protect you or the rights of your heirs should such occasion arise).

Basically, they are determined to make SURE that only criminals can carry on their premises.

Of course, they don't see it as that. What they have convinced themselves of is that only their employees could possibly commit an act of violence in the workplace, and so to protect everyone from said violence, no employees will be allowed to carry. After all, we're all civilized, and there's no need for you to be able to protect yourself in the workplace, because no one will do you any harm (except, of course, for the other employees who might loose it and shoot the place up which is why they aren't allowed to carry too, and prohibiting all employees from carrying has always been effective in the past... except that in every single instance I can think of workplace shootings company policies, not to mention laws, were ignored...)

jimlongley · #20

135boomer wrote:Maybe I'm just stupid, but, unless a CHL is required for the job, why would they even be interested or think that it is any of their business?

Because there are misguided individuals out there who see possession of a CHL as a threat of some kind or another.

At a company I worked for a few years back, I was called in for an "interview" with my boss and an HR person. Someone had complained that they "feared" me because I had a CHL. Shortly thereafter I received notice that a person had checked my status as a CHL holder, and I rcognized the name as the HR rep. Why she felt the need to do this I don't know because I acknowledged to her in the "interview" that I did indeed have a CHL and that I wasn't about to risk that status by threatening co-workers (I had not threatened anyone nor could I be reasonably perceived as having done so, the complaining employee was shotgunning accusations at all kinds of people due to his own poor performance, which I, among others, had complained about, how he knew about my CHL I don't know, but I aquired it while I worked for that company and it may have passed through the grapevine.)

Shortly thereafter I was laid off.

Do I think that my status as a CHL hoilder contributed to my layoff?

You bet!

Can I prove it?

Nope.

Do I think other employers are likely to do the same sort of thing to CHL holders.

Absolutely!

I think it's dangerous for employers to know.

135boomer · #21

I agree with you Jim. It can be dangerous for a company to know. It makes about as much sense to me as demanding to know what color my mother's hair is! If a CHL, or proof of training with a handgun isn't required for the job, it is none of their business.

tornado · #22

I work for a state agency, and our policy says that carrying in the building is OK unless you work here!

Charles, I'd love to see that banned by the Lege. IF DPS can trust me with a CHL, why can't the agency I work for?

Jason73 · #23

The Nokia warehouse on SH170 in Roanoke specifically asks if you have a CHL on the job application, and from what I understand it will automatically disqualify you as an applicant. Also, if you get a CHL while employed by them and the company finds out they fire you immediately.

Gotta love living in a free country.......oh wait, what freedom?

135boomer · #24

Jason73 wrote:The Nokia warehouse on SH170 in Roanoke specifically asks if you have a CHL on the job application, and from what I understand it will automatically disqualify you as an applicant. Also, if you get a CHL while employed by them and the company finds out they fire you immediately.

Gotta love living in a free country.......oh wait, what freedom?

We should have laws against that type of crud! It should be grounds for one heck of a lawsuit.

I picked up there when I worked for FedEx. The people I remember wouldn't make me bat an eye if I knew they had a CHL.

#25

Jason73 wrote:The Nokia warehouse on SH170 in Roanoke specifically asks if you have a CHL on the job application, and from what I understand it will automatically disqualify you as an applicant. Also, if you get a CHL while employed by them and the company finds out they fire you immediately.

Gotta love living in a free country.......oh wait, what freedom?

If it makes you feel any better, Nokia is closing down the Roanoke facility. They have been moving people out of there little by little, and it is practically empty now.

gregthehand · #26

I don't know if it has been covered but as far as being able to see if someone has "ran" your TXDL it is very simple. When a police officer, or dispatcher runs your DL TCIC/NCIC makes a log of them doing it. This comes in handy when doing what is called an "off-line" background search of you. If a police officer wants to know about you they can run this offline search and see who has ran you. If say some Harris County Sherriff's deputy did they can look and see if you got a ticket. If you didn't they can call that officer and ask why they ran you if they had not pulled you over. It may have been that you were arrested but later charges were dropped, or something else like that. Police departments use this practice all the time when doing background searches on apllicants. So if some officer was running DLs for these people it would be easy to find out by doing an offline search of TCIC/NCIC. If it was shown that you were no where in the area when your DL was ran, then they would perform an investigation and figure it out. People can actually get arrested if they try to bribe, or do bribe an officer to do this. Also just as an aside this system also applies for license plates as well.

srothstein · #27

Well, Greg beat me to the part about how someone could find out if a police officer somewhere is running their applicants for them. This is not hard to get done in many places, such as small towns OR if a reserve works in the HR department, as an example.

I strongly suggest that you (ICheeWaWa) call DPS CHL section and ask them if anyone has checked you status. If they say no, then call the DPS TLETS section and let them know what happened. They can do the off line search to see if someone was running you and may start an investigation on it since it is a crime.

I might have the wrong section of DPS to call, but they should refer you to whoever is the right section. They may have you talk to a detective, a ranger, or the FBI (as part of the NCIC system, the FBI has done these type of investigations when they think a cop is selling the info).

Renegade · #28

Jason73 wrote:The Nokia warehouse on SH170 in Roanoke specifically asks if you have a CHL on the job application, and from what I understand it will automatically disqualify you as an applicant. Also, if you get a CHL while employed by them and the company finds out they fire you immediately.

That is seriously brain-dead. I cannot see working with people that stupid & prejudiced.

#29

tornado wrote:I work for a state agency, and our policy says that carrying in the building is OK unless you work here!

Charles, I'd love to see that banned by the Lege. IF DPS can trust me with a CHL, why can't the agency I work for?

This will have to be addressed in 2009, along with all employer parking lots. SB534 passed the Senate, but it's stalled in the Calendars Committee in the House. It may come out, but I suspect it will be very late if at all. This is what happened to HB1815 (Motorist Protection Act) and it's dead.

Your agency isn't being generous to non-employee CHL's; they can't prohibit them from carrying.

Chas.

#30

Charles L. Cotton wrote:. . . It may come out, but I suspect it will be very late if at all. This is what happened to HB1815 (Motorist Protection Act) and it's dead.

Chas.

I'm going to have to learn to keep my mouth shut about HB1815! It has been referred to the Senate Criminal Justice Committee after all, and it may be heard in committee on Friday. It's still somewhat of a long-shot, but once again, I preached HB1815's funeral too soon. I can't give any details, but let's just say we have friends in very high places.

Chas.