Verbal warning valid if given before having license

[RiveraRa]

In another post, the company of a CHL carrier changed their Employee Handbook to disallow carrying of a firearm. He was a CHL carrier before the rule came into effect.
While reading this I started thinking...what if the situation was flip flopped. Say someone was given verbal notice when they started working at a company but they did not have a CHL at the time. A year later they decide to get their CHL. In the eyes of the law (I know they can still fire you for whatever reason they want) was the verbal notice valid since it was given before they had their license?

[fickman]

Written notice must be compliant to the 30.06 law to be legally binding. Without 30.06 wording, an employer may terminate an employee for violating company policy, but the employee wouldn't be guilty of trespass.

Oral notice does not have to use specific wording. If I received oral notice, I'd determine it's length of effectiveness by evaluating:
- Does the person who gave it have the authority to give it (owner, manager, HR rep acting as an agent of the company)?
If not, I'd either disregard it or only heed the notice for one visit to avoid confrontation.

- Is the person who gave it still in charge?
If so, and I have a way of knowing that, I'd likely consider the notice still in force for a period of time. . . months? a year?

- Is there a record of me receiving it?
If so, I'd assume it was valid until I am told otherwise or the management / ownership changes significantly. If it was an employment situation, I'd want to know if the record of me receiving it is in my HR file. . . like meeting minutes, etc.

Some examples:
If a Best Buy manager stood at the entrance of the store bellowing "no handguns here, even CHLs", I'd assume it was effective for that visit and others in the near term. I'd likely disregard it a couple of months later. There was no record that I received that notice. I don't know if that manager is still around. In my opinion, they need to keep telling it to me periodically.

If a small business owner that knows me personally gave me notice, I'd assume that notice is valid until he sells the business or tells me otherwise.

There is nothing in the law about the effective length of such notice, and no case law that I'm aware of, so your mileage may definitely vary. I'm trying to use the "reasonable person" standard and the "what can they prove" measuring stick.

[RoyGBiv]

If I was given verbal notice before I had a CHL, I would not expect the effectiveness of that notice to be affected even one iota when my CHL arrived.

Put simply... The verbal warning i still valid... forever, until rescinded.

IMO, IANAL. This is my opinion, not legal advice.

[Purplehood]

If I was given verbal notice before I had a CHL, I would not expect the effectiveness of that notice to be affected even one iota when my CHL arrived.

Put simply... The verbal warning i still valid... forever, until rescinded.

IMO, IANAL. This is my opinion, not legal advice.

What he said...

[tbrown]

If I was given verbal notice before I had a CHL, I would not expect the effectiveness of that notice to be affected even one iota when my CHL arrived.

Put simply... The verbal warning i still valid... forever, until rescinded.

IMO, IANAL. This is my opinion, not legal advice.

What he said...

Same here. In practical terms, the chances of being caught and convicted are low, but that's true of a lot of things.

[srothstein]

This is an interesting legal question that I do not have an answer for. In general, I agree that notice is good until rescinded once you receive it. But if you do not have a CHL, written notice has no specific requirements. Even a gun in a circle with a red slash is good enough. If you do not have a CHL and your employee handbook says that guns are not allowed on property, you could be charged with trespassing if you brought a gun on the property.

But if you received the notice and it is not valid for a CHL, does the notice apply once you get your CHL? I don't know the answer. I can see the court saying it is not still valid because it doesn't meet the letter of the law. It might also have a problem with the notice being valid for an employee who has a CHL but got the job and notice first while not being valid for the employee who had a CHL when he was hired and received the notice. But I can also see the court saying it is valid and getting a CHL after receiving the notice is just an attempt to short cut the notice.

I think this one would be decided on the specifics of the case that first hits the court. Other factors would probably come into play that should not have any bearing on the case, like if the employee routinely ignored other rules. My only warning on this is to remember that bad cases make bad case law but we get stuck with it.

[priusron]

If the manager is standing at the door I would not consider that effective notice. I do not know if it is directed at the customers or employees. It would have no more wt than a gunbuster sign. Now if he greeted every customer and stated noweapons allowed I would consider that effective notice.

[sunny beach]

This is an interesting legal question that I do not have an answer for. In general, I agree that notice is good until rescinded once you receive it.

I agree. Suppose my boss has a few acres on a lake. He gives me a key to the lock on the gate and permission to go out there to fish, hike, or camp, but no hunting. I figure OK because I don't have hunting license anyway. If some time passes and I buy a hunting license, I might ask him for permission to hunt the land, but I wouldn't just assume the hunting prohibition expired.