SB 321 employer requesting license?

[jimlongley]

If any one of our doctor's were to ask this I would ask them why are they asking. There would be some discussion, but in the end, I'd probably just thank them and explain that I'll be finding a new doctor and just leave.

I don’t see what the big controversy in Florida is about.

Doctor: “Do you have any guns at home”? Gun owner: No I “don’t believe in guns”. Problem solved.

If all gun owners did this it would make the doctor’s question pointless.

There is no law against lying to a doctor and as an added benefit, if doctors thought some patients were doing this, it would make a few of them crazy.

If you made it "I don't believe in guns" instead of "NO, I don't . . ." it could be argued that you didn't lie, after all guns are not a concept that requires belief, they are real objects that exist, etc, etc, etc . . . Very existential.

[Matt78665]

Agree wtih Kjolly

[ex_dsmr]

The third "S"- Shut up. Nobody at your job knows you have a CHL.....do they?
Personally I would not comply as in "What CHL?"

While they are trying to flex their muscle after getting pimp slapped by the law, they can still enact retarded policies so long as its a private company. Texas is an "at will" employer so if you are found to be in violation of or refuse to follow company policy you may be fired for any reason.

Its really not much different than those who work for a company who has a "no guns" policy and an unposted location. They arent risking criminal prosecution but they are risking job termination.


The next step if you so choose would be to do as others have suggested and foward this to the NRA-ILA and let them spend their time and money using your company as a punching bag.

Till then, keep your firearm in your car and play dumb.

[VoiceofReason]

The third "S"- Shut up. Nobody at your job knows you have a CHL.....do they?
Personally I would not comply as in "What CHL?"

While they are trying to flex their muscle after getting pimp slapped by the law, they can still enact retarded policies so long as its a private company. Texas is an "at will" employer so if you are found to be in violation of or refuse to follow company policy you may be fired for any reason.

Its really not much different than those who work for a company who has a "no guns" policy and an unposted location. They arent risking criminal prosecution but they are risking job termination.


The next step if you so choose would be to do as others have suggested and foward this to the NRA-ILA and let them spend their time and money using your company as a punching bag.

Till then, keep your firearm in your car and play dumb.

The “at will” thing only goes so far. There have been companies learn this lesson from law suits.

[C-dub]

The third "S"- Shut up. Nobody at your job knows you have a CHL.....do they?
Personally I would not comply as in "What CHL?"

While they are trying to flex their muscle after getting pimp slapped by the law, they can still enact retarded policies so long as its a private company. Texas is an "at will" employer so if you are found to be in violation of or refuse to follow company policy you may be fired for any reason.

Its really not much different than those who work for a company who has a "no guns" policy and an unposted location. They arent risking criminal prosecution but they are risking job termination.


The next step if you so choose would be to do as others have suggested and foward this to the NRA-ILA and let them spend their time and money using your company as a punching bag.

Till then, keep your firearm in your car and play dumb.

The “at will” thing only goes so far. There have been companies learn this lesson from law suits.

And so much so that my company goes the extra mile to make sure that when they do terminate someone they have all the documentation of whatever violation of company policy to back it up.

[VoiceofReason]

The third "S"- Shut up. Nobody at your job knows you have a CHL.....do they?
Personally I would not comply as in "What CHL?"

While they are trying to flex their muscle after getting pimp slapped by the law, they can still enact retarded policies so long as its a private company. Texas is an "at will" employer so if you are found to be in violation of or refuse to follow company policy you may be fired for any reason.

Its really not much different than those who work for a company who has a "no guns" policy and an unposted location. They arent risking criminal prosecution but they are risking job termination.


The next step if you so choose would be to do as others have suggested and foward this to the NRA-ILA and let them spend their time and money using your company as a punching bag.

Till then, keep your firearm in your car and play dumb.

The “at will” thing only goes so far. There have been companies learn this lesson from law suits.

And so much so that my company goes the extra mile to make sure that when they do terminate someone they have all the documentation of whatever violation of company policy to back it up.

That’s the way it should be.

Many years ago telephone company supervisors would show up at an employee’s home to look for company property. If the employee did not allow the supervisors to look through his/her house and garage, the employee would be fired on the spot. There was no law against this but after losing a couple of big law suits, “company policy” was changed.

Can’t put my finger on it but this seems to tie in to searching employee’s vehicles somehow.

[apostate]

Can’t put my finger on it but this seems to tie in to searching employee’s vehicles somehow.

Perhaps it's related to the difference between searching a vehicle parked on their property and coming to your home and demanding to search a vehicle parked on your property.

Me? I took the easy way out. I chose an employer whose policy is silent on the matter.

[jimlongley]

Many years ago telephone company supervisors would show up at an employee’s home to look for company property. If the employee did not allow the supervisors to look through his/her house and garage, the employee would be fired on the spot. There was no law against this but after losing a couple of big law suits, “company policy” was changed.

Can’t put my finger on it but this seems to tie in to searching employee’s vehicles somehow.

More like many decades ago. That stopped happening long before I started working for Ma Bell in the 60s. By my time, if the company had suspicions that someone was taking company property, and that happened a lot, a case was made through security, and than a union rep accompanied management to do the inspection and final notification, and if it didn't happen by the book, they guy kept his job, even in extreme cases.

As a steward I was lucky enough to only have to go along a couple of times and was unlucky enough to see a guy who should have been fired get "saved" by an incorrect procedure followed by a manager who should have known better.

Anyway, I think it's unlikely that an employer insisting on CHL holders allow them to keep copies will get away with it for long, even without a union.

[goheeled]

What's the harm in just submitting a copy, as requested, then ask them how they plan to enforce policies as they pertain to non-CHLers? This might not be the battle that you want to fight. Hard to afford a decent lawyer when you're on unemployment.

[JKTex]

BTW, to those of you who keep talking about carrying under MPA, the OP (I believe) was referring to a refinery/chemical plant where MPA doesn't allow an employee to store in their vehicle on the property. Only CHL's at those locations.

The OP never said that.

Assuming it is not a petro company, forget about it. Someone doens't like the new law that they obviously grossly misunderstand so they amended a policy in a way that can not be enforced because it has nothing to do with a CHL. The first time, IF they somehow search or find or whatever, and the person is not a CHL holder, said HR nitwit will have a semi-permanent deer in the headlights look... and they'll say "never mind" and go back and try again, and again will be unsuccessful.

[The Annoyed Man]

Anyone have their employer enact policy that states to comply with new weapons rules you must submit a copy of your CHL to Human Resources to have a gun in your car in the parking lot? My employer says failure to do so will result in termination. Any info or thoughts appreciated.
J

You could also ask them how they plan to verify everyone else that does not have a CHL, but will have a gun in their vehicle under the MPA. Be prepared for the blank stare.

This.

[bayouhazard]

Anyone have their employer enact policy that states to comply with new weapons rules you must submit a copy of your CHL to Human Resources to have a gun in your car in the parking lot? My employer says failure to do so will result in termination. Any info or thoughts appreciated.
J

You could also ask them how they plan to verify everyone else that does not have a CHL, but will have a gun in their vehicle under the MPA. Be prepared for the blank stare.

This.

What about it? Has anyone tried his suggestion yet?

[canvasbck]

BTW, to those of you who keep talking about carrying under MPA, the OP (I believe) was referring to a refinery/chemical plant where MPA doesn't allow an employee to store in their vehicle on the property. Only CHL's at those locations.

The OP never said that.

Assuming it is not a petro company, forget about it. Someone doens't like the new law that they obviously grossly misunderstand so they amended a policy in a way that can not be enforced because it has nothing to do with a CHL. The first time, IF they somehow search or find or whatever, and the person is not a CHL holder, said HR nitwit will have a semi-permanent deer in the headlights look... and they'll say "never mind" and go back and try again, and again will be unsuccessful.

I realize that the OP never said that, thats why I put the I believe part in there.

If it's not a chemical plant or refinery, then you are absolutely correct.

[C-dub]

Anyone have their employer enact policy that states to comply with new weapons rules you must submit a copy of your CHL to Human Resources to have a gun in your car in the parking lot? My employer says failure to do so will result in termination. Any info or thoughts appreciated.
J

You could also ask them how they plan to verify everyone else that does not have a CHL, but will have a gun in their vehicle under the MPA. Be prepared for the blank stare.

This.

What about it? Has anyone tried his suggestion yet?

I have not. My company basically has their head stuck in the sand and would like to believe that they are exempt from this law. They have not changed their policy yet and have not asked for a copy of anyone's license because they believe they can still prohibit anyone from carrying a weapon on the property.

[bayouhazard]

I guess it's like that anti-Muslim instructor. They can say whatever they want and make any rules they want as long as they don't try to enforce them.