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.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.
Employers and CHL Discovery
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: from their perspective
-
- 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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 7590
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: 77504
Re: from their perspective
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...Renegade wrote: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.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.
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!
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
Lockheed
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
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch
-
- Member
- Posts in topic: 6
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:04 pm
- Location: White Settlement, TX
Re: Lockheed
Yep, I think you are correct.Rex B wrote:Perhaps they have facilities that are not Federal, and want all their properties covered.
Re: from their perspective
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.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...
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 13551
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
- Location: Galveston
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
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 7:50 am
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?????propellerhead wrote:I was afraid of that. It's probably in response to a shooting at our Marietta, GA location back in 2003.
Thanks.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 7590
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: 77504
Of course we are...Thats the beauty of this system...I give myself headaches here, as much as I can stand...seamusTX wrote:Y'all are overthinking this issue.
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!
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: San Antonio
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!!!txinvestigator wrote: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.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."
Chas.
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
USAF (Retired)
NRA Life Member
NRA Basic Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer