Carry at work

[i8godzilla]

In my mind, Keith has this one right. There is no reason for the AND portion of the and/or unless it was to compel the employee to get permission. In other words, according to the wording, you have to have permission from the CSO in order to carry a firearm, licensed or not. Consider the the two phrases:

"...entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law AND authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer."

"...entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law OR authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer."

Either way it is stated requires CSO permission, IMO.

--NEB

I'll take exception...........

If you only take the "OR" it would imply that the Chief Security Officer alone can authorize you to have a weapon in the workplace. Can the CSO override state or federal law? If you take the "AND" then yes you need some legal basis (CHL) PLUS the CSO?

Try this: I would like a car AND/OR a motorcycle for Christmas this year. I am saying that I would like either one or both. Not that I only want a car if I get a motorcycle.

No, I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night..............

[Thomas]

If you only take the "OR" it would imply that the Chief Security Officer alone can authorize you to have a weapon in the workplace. Can the CSO override state or federal law? If you take the "AND" then yes you need some legal basis (CHL) PLUS the CSO?

Good point.

Code: Select all

Business Major   Computer Science Major  
     AND               AND    
     AND/OR            OR    
     OR                XOR    

?

Lol, I was thinking about posting some Boolean algebra ("Truth Table") examples.

[sjfcontrol]

Thomas, that's the way I see it. Only one of the statements has to be met. However, read both statements and you will see that in either condition, the CSO has to give written permission. Of course, I am the farthest thing from a lawyer....

--NEB

No -- or means, umm, "or". (It is the lesser of the restrictions. if you must meet "this and/or that" you only need to meet ONE of the restrictions, not both -- but of course, both are OK if you happen to fall into that category.)

If he meets either of the requirements, he's good to go. If he's licensed -- go for it.

BUT -- if that's not what THEY thought they were saying -- you may have to redeem yourself in court.

[cbr600]

BUT -- if that's not what THEY thought they were saying -- you may have to redeem yourself in court.

Wrongful termination suit?

[sjfcontrol]

BUT -- if that's not what THEY thought they were saying -- you may have to redeem yourself in court.

Wrongful termination suit?

Hey! -- Go for it!

[cbr600]

It obviously doesn't meet the 30.06 language requirements, so that seems like the only way for the situation to end up in court.

As for me, I figure it's easier to not work for companies like that in the first place, so what do I know?

[Dave2]

As for me, I figure it's easier to not work for companies like that in the first place, so what do I know?

The way I read it, you're welcome to carry at work if you've got a CHL, and you might be able to talk them into letting you even if you don't.

[speedsix]

...as an employee, I would comply with the law of Texas...the company rules are only binding if you are discovered in violation...in 45+ years of carrying with and without a license/badge, I have never been spotted...I personally would/have carry well concealed to be secure in my person and noone there would know it...if they ever brought in a detecting wand, a trained dog, or I ever needed to use it...I would become unemployed...which is better than dead...at least in my mind...
...it's like everything else in life...we have to make choices...I would not advise anyone to carry illegally...nor would I report them...unless their demeanor raised alarm...

[Purplehood]

I seriously doubt that any policy with the term "and/or" in it was written by a lawyer. I would carry concealed.

[Warhammer]

Thomas, that's the way I see it. Only one of the statements has to be met. However, read both statements and you will see that in either condition, the CSO has to give written permission. Of course, I am the farthest thing from a lawyer....

--NEB

Actually, no. The second statement does NOT require permission from the CSO.

"...entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law OR authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer."

The "or" here would mean that you must meet either one OR the other condition. One condition is "entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law." The other condition is "authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer." One OR the other. This OR that. Black OR white. Chocolate OR vanilla. Applicable law OR CSO permission. In this case, if you are entitled by law, you don't need CSO permission. If you have CSO permission, you don't have to be entitled by law.

IANAL either... but I was an English major.

[SecedeTX]

Thanks for all of the posts. I am not a lawyer, but I do have one, and I asked his opinion.

He said carry, keep it concealed, don't tell anyone, and don't ask permission. Basically, don't make it an isssue and it will not be an issue. If, for some crazy reason it becomes an issue (a rare occasion when you actually need your firearm) I would have a good case to defend my actions due to the wording of the employee handbook.

[txcshooter]

Awesome!

IANAL but I was actually thinking the same thing. lol It just took me a while to read all the posts.

[SecedeTX]

From what was in the employee handbook, I am actually really suprised at the differences in responses that this thread has uncovered. Being suprised at the responses is a good thing im my opinion.

I read it as I was able to carry. The "I would like a Car and/or a motorcycle" argument caught my attention though.

Grey seems the color of the day, but at the end of this my decision is to carry REALLY quietly. I may even take the NRA sticker off my car to avoid any possible questions at work.

This forum is awesome.

[baldeagle]

I made the assumption that my company banned carrying at work, so I did not even look through the employee handbook because I assumed I would be prohibited. I found it today, and wanted input on what I found:

> Possessing weapons on company presises, in company vehicles or while on company business, except and only to the extent that you are entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law and/or authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer. Weapons include but are not limited to, firearms and dangerous or deadly weapons, including explosive devices,, stun gun or any other item a reasonable person might consider a dangerous weapon.

Am I reading this right? I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if "entitled" = "licensed"? The "and/or" would lead me to believe that "licensed" would make it not necessary to get writen authorization by the "cheif security officer"

Am I off base here, or is this saying I can carry at work?

You can carry IF you have a letter in writting from the CSO. The and/or has to be met.

Keith is correct. Here's why.
except and only to the extent that you are entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law and authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer
or
authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer.

The and/or creates two conditions. 1) You are entitled by law and you are authorized in writing or 2) You are not entitled by law but you are authorized in writing.

[Dave2]

I made the assumption that my company banned carrying at work, so I did not even look through the employee handbook because I assumed I would be prohibited. I found it today, and wanted input on what I found:

> Possessing weapons on company presises, in company vehicles or while on company business, except and only to the extent that you are entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law and/or authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer. Weapons include but are not limited to, firearms and dangerous or deadly weapons, including explosive devices,, stun gun or any other item a reasonable person might consider a dangerous weapon.

Am I reading this right? I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if "entitled" = "licensed"? The "and/or" would lead me to believe that "licensed" would make it not necessary to get writen authorization by the "cheif security officer"

Am I off base here, or is this saying I can carry at work?

You can carry IF you have a letter in writting from the CSO. The and/or has to be met.

Keith is correct. Here's why.
except and only to the extent that you are entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law and authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer
or
authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer.

The and/or creates two conditions. 1) You are entitled by law and you are authorized in writing or 2) You are not entitled by law but you are authorized in writing.

I don't understand your logic. "/" is generally taken to mean "or" in English, so "A and/or B" would mean "'A and B' or 'A or B'". Since A (in this case) is met, why do we care about B?