Employers and CHL Discovery

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Renegade

Re: from their perspective

#46

Post by Renegade »

Rex B wrote:If the company has a strict no-guns policy, and they know you are a CHL holder, they could resonably suspect you might choose to violate that policy.
Nonsense. A CHL is a proven abider of rules and respect for authority, it would be reasonable to conclude they would NOT violate the policy.

propellerhead
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:12 am
Location: The part of Texas that isn't like Texas

#47

Post by propellerhead »

135boomer wrote:I don't think they will need an exception. I believe the company is on federal property.
Good point. It is Air Force Plant #4.
User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Re: from their perspective

#48

Post by stevie_d_64 »

Renegade wrote:
Rex B wrote:If the company has a strict no-guns policy, and they know you are a CHL holder, they could resonably suspect you might choose to violate that policy.
Nonsense. A CHL is a proven abider of rules and respect for authority, it would be reasonable to conclude they would NOT violate the policy.
I believe it is also ironic, and somewhat hypocritical that if a company/employer could trust me enough to be a key member of a small team that handled/developed/completed a $350 million dollar contract, in a foriegn country to boot...

I have to wonder why they feel I am not trustworthy to conduct myself accordingly working in their office...

This is basically as petty as I can imagine an employer being at this point...

Just my opinion...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

Rex B
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3615
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: DFW

Lockheed

#49

Post by Rex B »

Perhaps they have facilities that are not Federal, and want all their properties covered.
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch

135boomer
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:04 pm
Location: White Settlement, TX

Re: Lockheed

#50

Post by 135boomer »

Rex B wrote:Perhaps they have facilities that are not Federal, and want all their properties covered.
Yep, I think you are correct.

Rex B
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3615
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: DFW

Re: from their perspective

#51

Post by Rex B »

stevie_d_64 wrote: I believe it is also ironic, and somewhat hypocritical that if a company/employer could trust me enough to be a key member of a small team that handled/developed/completed a $350 million dollar contract, in a foriegn country to boot...

I have to wonder why they feel I am not trustworthy to conduct myself accordingly working in their office...

This is basically as petty as I can imagine an employer being at this point...

Just my opinion...
Just playing devil's advocate here, if they openly allow you to carry, they'd also have to let that "marginal" guy in the corner cubicle (who has a CHL, Lord knows how) carry also. As a former employer, I have had people running my stores, handling thousands of dollars in cash on a daily basis unsupervised, that I would not be comfortable representing my business if I knew they were carrying. It's better to have a blanket policy and then make off-record exceptions. Hopefully we would have an enlightened employer who would see us as exceptions, should it ever come to that.
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch
User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#52

Post by seamusTX »

Y'all are overthinking this issue.

Employers ban weapons in the workplace because a lawyer or insurance company or both told them that it would relieve them of liability. (It doesn't, but that's what they say).

Employers who are serious about keeping contraband out of the workplace have metal detectors, or search people who are entering. I have worked for several of those.

- Jim
Last edited by seamusTX on Thu May 17, 2007 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

para driver
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 7:50 am

#53

Post by para driver »

propellerhead wrote:I was afraid of that. It's probably in response to a shooting at our Marietta, GA location back in 2003.

Thanks.
Since they work on Federal Security projects, I think you're coming under the guidelines of military and federal property. If you get busted, goodbye to your clearance?????
User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#54

Post by stevie_d_64 »

seamusTX wrote:Y'all are overthinking this issue.
Of course we are...Thats the beauty of this system...I give myself headaches here, as much as I can stand...

I agree with your points as well...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

MTICop
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: San Antonio

#55

Post by MTICop »

txinvestigator wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:It sounds to me like that have someone running a check on their TDLs. (this used to be called a CPL, but that may have changed.) That's a big "no-no." :nono:

Chas.
I am embarrassed to admit I did not consider that. However, it is a possibility. If a LEO or LE communications operator runs the Driver License for them, the CHL would show. Doing that can cost the person their job, a HUGE fine and also a fine to the agency, I believe.
You are correct, the agency can be fined as well. Had an incident where one of my troops was running DL's at work for personal (female) reasons. It was questioned in an audit and he came clean. The only reason they didn't fine us, or so they said, was because they knew we, the USAF, would put a pretty big hurt on him. AND WE DID!!!

I didn't get the dollar amout of what the fine could have been but they mentioned over and over that it was pretty hefty.
Adversity doesn't build character....it reveals it.

USAF (Retired)
NRA Life Member
NRA Basic Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”