Work and Right of Protection

[boomerd35]

With a few exceptions, they are not allowed to prohibit employees from having a gun in personally owned vehicles in parking they provide for employees.

However, they can prohibit guns in buildings and on grounds that are not parking areas. They can do that by policy and fire the offenders. They can do that by giving 30.06 notice and having the offenders arrested. That is their right as property owners. In neither case are they violating anybody's rights.

What do you think are the few exceptions? My employer just posted 30.06 signs at the entrance to the parking lot and also posted 30.05 signs right next to them stating that the entrance is to private property. I understand they consulted with an attorney who advised them to do this. SO I guess their angle is that they are stating the parking lot is private property and having a handgun even in the parking lot is a violation of 30.06. I need to look at the laws again and refresh my memory.

[Crossfire]

30.06 only applies to CARRYING a handgun on or about your person, under authority of your CHL. It does not prohibit you from having a gun in your car. And 30.05 does not apply to a person who has a CHL.

The exceptions to the parking lot law are:
Property where possession is prohibited by federal or state law
A vehicle owned or leased by the employer
A public or private school, charter school, or school district
Property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil or gas refiner that contains the physical plant

There are a few more exceptions too, but I can't remember them right off the top of my head, and they are somewhat obscure.

[boomerd35]

Thanks crossfire. I'm going to try and find the laws or rulings related to the parking lot and print them out. I think they posted the 30.05 to state that entering the property means that you consent to a search of your vehicle. I am anticipating they will do a random search in the near future.

[Crossfire]

It is in the Labor Code. Specifically LC 52.061 and 52.062.

If you have a CHL-16, it is in there.

[boomerd35]

It is in the Labor Code. Specifically LC 52.061 and 52.062.

If you have a CHL-16, it is in there.

Yeah, it's pretty clear. I just wonder what their attorney told them that made them think those two together would prohibit employees carrying in their vehicle. There are many ways to interpret laws to fit your own view, but honestly this one seems open and shut. I will print out those sections and keep them in my truck.

[bizarrenormality]

Is it a parking lot for employees only or is it open to the public? I'm asking because the parking lot law does not protect the general public.

[bizarrenormality]

30.06 only applies to CARRYING a handgun on or about your person, under authority of your CHL. It does not prohibit you from having a gun in your car. And 30.05 does not apply to a person who has a CHL.

I think to get the 30.05 exception he would be carrying under the authority of his CHL and then 30.06 would apply.

[boomerd35]

Is it a parking lot for employees only or is it open to the public? I'm asking because the parking lot law does not protect the general public.

That's an interesting point. The parking lot is open to the public- not just employees.

[mnewlander]

Is it a parking lot for employees only or is it open to the public? I'm asking because the parking lot law does not protect the general public.

That's an interesting point. The parking lot is open to the public- not just employees.

The parking lot is for both employees and members, it is a private club so no public.

[bizarrenormality]

The parking lot is for both employees and members, it is a private club so no public.

Then a 30.06 sign would be effective notice for members and their guests.

[drjoker]

Do keep in mind that if a situation were to come up where you'd have to defend yourself and they had this policy in place, you could sue because they would be endangering your life.

For example, I fired this employee who was not following directions and threatened me with a knife. After I fired him, he then treatened to come back to go postal and shoot me and his former coworkers. I went to corporate and demanded that I be given special permission to carry past the 30.06 sign and not get fired for bringing my gun to work. They refused. I hired a lawyer and threatened to sue. They ended up hiring a team of 6 unarmed security guards to walk me to my car. I asked why SIX unarmed security guards and the corporate administrators replied, "Well, we can't have armed guards because we don't believe in guns, but we figure since guns carry 6 bullets, 6 unarmed guards should be enough to keep you from being shot."

Wow. The depth of their libtard ignorance really amazes me. I didn't even bother replying to that.

Waiting on the mail today for my CHL i thought of this.
I work in a place that has a no weapons policy and is stated in the handbook. now on days i drive this is no problem for i can leave my weapon in the car, but my wife and i only have one car we share and every other week i have to rely on city transportation to get home from work.
My question is this, If policy is i cannot have a weapon at work is this in violation of my right to protect myself to and from work? i know that there is some law about this.

[sunny beach]

Do keep in mind that if a situation were to come up where you'd have to defend yourself and they had this policy in place, you could sue because they would be endangering your life.

That's a new one for me. What's the average judgement in these lawsuits?

[drjoker]

Do keep in mind that if a situation were to come up where you'd have to defend yourself and they had this policy in place, you could sue because they would be endangering your life.

That's a new one for me. What's the average judgement in these lawsuits?

Please reread the post. I did not sue in court. I threatened to sue so that they'd at least hire the security guards for me.

[Lucky]

You didn't suggest people threaten to sue. You said they could sue. I think it's fair to ask how much the estate usually gets when a CHL is killed because of a policy that endangered their life.

Do keep in mind that if a situation were to come up where you'd have to defend yourself and they had this policy in place, you could sue because they would be endangering your life.