Employer Weapons Policy

[Wodathunkit]

I'm noticing a "tone" in your response, but I'll answer your questions as they listed.

Let's say that I am an employer.

Let's say that I have a Company policy, which every employee including you, signs a statement they have read and understand, that no weapons are permitted on Company Property and that violation of that policy is grounds for immediate termination. We just joined this company as part of a sale, we did not see any policies until after we were processed in.

The Parking Lot Law says you can have your weapon in your locked vehicle in my parking lot. Our parking lot is allegedly a Federal Free Trade Zone (or FFTZ) and would be excluded from the law you are quoting.

You choose to bring a weapon onto my property outside of your vehicle and it is discovered. We would never do that, that would be a violation of the law.

You are fired for violation of Company Policy.

Do you have any right to whine, complain or otherwise object?

Yes, I think I do.

[Jumping Frog]

Let's say that I am an employer.
...
You are fired for violation of Company Policy.

Do you have any right to whine, complain or otherwise object?

Well, here is the deal. Any company that is large enough to be writing formal HR policies regarding parking lots should have reasonably competent HR people. A competent HR person will ensure the person is simply told their services are no longer required and not give a specific reason for the termination. Texas is an at-will employment state.

[C-dub]

Let's say that I am an employer.
...
You are fired for violation of Company Policy.

Do you have any right to whine, complain or otherwise object?

Well, here is the deal. Any company that is large enough to be writing formal HR policies regarding parking lots should have reasonably competent HR people. A competent HR person will ensure the person is simply told their services are no longer required and not give a specific reason for the termination. Texas is an at-will employment state.

And by having that policy your company is in violation of the Parking Lot Law that states you shall not have a policy that prohibits people having guns in their vehicles. It seems that in your hypothetical situation you are treating the PLL as a defense to prosecution for the employee rather than a directive for the employer to not have a policy against having guns in private vehicles. IANAL, but it would seem to me it would be easier for an employee terminated for anything borderline in this area that by you simply having this policy in direct contradiction to the law that the employee could establish bias on your part.

Of course, anyone has the right to whine, complain, or object. They may not get very far legally, but they can still do it and cause you grief.

[sailor2000]

Let's say that I am an employer.
...
You are fired for violation of Company Policy.

Do you have any right to whine, complain or otherwise object?

Well, here is the deal. Any company that is large enough to be writing formal HR policies regarding parking lots should have reasonably competent HR people. A competent HR person will ensure the person is simply told their services are no longer required and not give a specific reason for the termination. Texas is an at-will employment state.

And by having that policy your company is in violation of the Parking Lot Law that states you shall not have a policy that prohibits people having guns in their vehicles. It seems that in your hypothetical situation you are treating the PLL as a defense to prosecution for the employee rather than a directive for the employer to not have a policy against having guns in private vehicles. IANAL, but it would seem to me it would be easier for an employee terminated for anything borderline in this area that by you simply having this policy in direct contradiction to the law that the employee could establish bias on your part.

Of course, anyone has the right to whine, complain, or object. They may not get very far legally, but they can still do it and cause you grief.

The hypothetical proposed specifically said the actor choose to have the weapon on my property outside of his vehicle, thereby creating a situation in which the parking lot exemption did not apply. It also said the actor had previously agreed in writing to not behave in ways prohibited by the company's policy's.

The hypothetical proposed is neither an endorsement nor a criticism of the Employer's policy. The Employer clearly has the right under Texas law to choose to create such a policy. It is only meant as a exploration of the employee's series of choices, i.e. agreeing to abide by a set of rules, choosing to break those rules and then complain that he was somehow treated unfairly.

How then does the actor in the hypothetical have room for complaint? If his sensibilities are offended by the employers rules the time to protest is before agreeing to follow the policies of the employer and seek employment elsewhere rather than lie about his intentions, accept the empoyer's payment for services rendered when such payment is conditioned on obeying the rules he previously agreed to, and then feel somehow justified in ojecting to the consequences he agreed to for breaking the rules.

[C-dub]

Let's say that I am an employer.
...
You are fired for violation of Company Policy.

Do you have any right to whine, complain or otherwise object?

Well, here is the deal. Any company that is large enough to be writing formal HR policies regarding parking lots should have reasonably competent HR people. A competent HR person will ensure the person is simply told their services are no longer required and not give a specific reason for the termination. Texas is an at-will employment state.

And by having that policy your company is in violation of the Parking Lot Law that states you shall not have a policy that prohibits people having guns in their vehicles. It seems that in your hypothetical situation you are treating the PLL as a defense to prosecution for the employee rather than a directive for the employer to not have a policy against having guns in private vehicles. IANAL, but it would seem to me it would be easier for an employee terminated for anything borderline in this area that by you simply having this policy in direct contradiction to the law that the employee could establish bias on your part.

Of course, anyone has the right to whine, complain, or object. They may not get very far legally, but they can still do it and cause you grief.

The hypothetical proposed specifically said the actor choose to have the weapon on my property outside of his vehicle, thereby creating a situation in which the parking lot exemption did not apply. It also said the actor had previously agreed in writing to not behave in ways prohibited by the company's policy's.

How then does the actor in the hypothetical have room for complaint? If his sensibilities are offended by the employers rules the time to protest is before agreeing to follow the policies of the employer and seek employment elsewhere rather than lie about his intentions.

Is this property completely fenced and access strictly controlled and properly posted with a 30.06 sign? I'm also speculating here since the policy itself is in violation of state law. I'm also curious about something else here. Are you in the company that bought or was sold in this deal? You said that you were sold to this company and didn't notice these policies until afterward, so it sounds like you were the smaller company.

I am also just a little bit biased because my own employer has a similar policy in violation of state law and thinks they know the law and are compliant. Yet they do nothing to prevent anyone from actually carrying on the property or premises. There are no 30.06 signs or wording anywhere in our policy, handbook, or property. And passersby can walk right across the property and through the parking lot unimpeded. I also know of at least one VP and several other mid and upper level management people that have guns in their vehicles and have had them there prior to the parking lot law being passed. However, I don't know of anyone that has been terminated. So, please forgive me if my tone sounded negatively directed at you personally.

If the actor did as you say, then they certainly violated the policy. How would they have been discovered? I would be interested to know if this would be a situation like there has been in many stop-n-robs or other places like CVS, where an employee lawfully used their concealed handgun to defend themselves only to later be fired for violating company policy. Or were they doing something stupid and showing a coworker their new Glock?

[sailor2000]

If the actor did as you say, then they certainly violated the policy. How would they have been discovered? I would be interested to know if this would be a situation like there has been in many stop-n-robs or other places like CVS, where an employee lawfully used their concealed handgun to defend themselves only to later be fired for violating company policy. Or were they doing something stupid and showing a coworker their new Glock?

I didn't specify how the weapon was discovered, only that it was. None of the situation proposed is based on any real life event which has happened to me or anyone I know. It is just a hypothetical set of circumstances.

[C-dub]

Well, since I didn't see you original question I now notice that I have misread Whodathunkit's comments as part of you questions.

However, I'd still be curious about how the actor was discovered because I would be more forgiving if it was accidental. But on the other hand, I wouldn't have a policy that disarms CHLs in my business either. I think it is odd that company's now are more concerned about their bottom line than helping or protecting their own employees.

[x007x]

The company I work for would fire you for sure, if you had to use your gun to save your life. Even though there is not a posting of 30.06 or a gun policy in the handbook. In my opinion, if you don't mention or talk about anything incriminating, then the company does not have a cause to search your car. That's just me though. They would need the cops to search my car. To me, it's invasion of privacy. I could be wrong, but I'm just fighting for what I think is right for my rights. It's public property, if its private property. Wouldn't anyone who steps on the property be trespassing?

[EKO]

Is this property completely fenced and access strictly controlled and properly posted with a 30.06 sign? I'm also speculating here since the policy itself is in violation of state law. I'm also curious about something else here. Are you in the company that bought or was sold in this deal? You said that you were sold to this company and didn't notice these policies until afterward, so it sounds like you were the smaller company.

For ease of understanding This Company has 3 parking lots outside of the secured area, all are patrolled by security. One of the lots is rented and they basically have no control (other than being a bullying employees), many other businesses use this parking lot. #2 is an employee parking lot that is controlled by a Sticker. if you don't have a sticker you dont park there. #3 is a Contractors parking lot where many Company employees park and no sticker is required. I'm not too worried about it. concealed is concealed. and if something were to happen my plan is to be alive to look for another job or retire and let my wife support me

There are 30.06 signs posted for the secure area. (which are not required)

[C-dub]

Is this property completely fenced and access strictly controlled and properly posted with a 30.06 sign? I'm also speculating here since the policy itself is in violation of state law. I'm also curious about something else here. Are you in the company that bought or was sold in this deal? You said that you were sold to this company and didn't notice these policies until afterward, so it sounds like you were the smaller company.

For ease of understanding This Company has 3 parking lots outside of the secured area, all are patrolled by security. One of the lots is rented and they basically have no control (other than being a bullying employees), many other businesses use this parking lot. #2 is an employee parking lot that is controlled by a Sticker. if you don't have a sticker you dont park there. #3 is a Contractors parking lot where many Company employees park and no sticker is required. I'm not too worried about it. concealed is concealed. and if something were to happen my plan is to be alive to look for another job or retire and let my wife support me

There are 30.06 signs posted for the secure area. (which are not required)

Interesting, a company that wants to control behavior in a lot they don't own or have control of and isn't posted.

[tbrown]

Let's say that I am an employer.

Let's say that I have a Company policy, which every employee including you, signs a statement they have read and understand, that no weapons are permitted on Company Property and that violation of that policy is grounds for immediate termination.

The Parking Lot Law says you can have your weapon in your locked vehicle in my parking lot.

You choose to bring a weapon onto my property outside of your vehicle and it is discovered.

You are fired for violation of Company Policy.

Do you have any right to whine, complain or otherwise object?

For sure, until the First Amendment is repealed, I have a right to complain.

[stevie_d_64]

Texas' right to work status and an employers' right to terminate an employee for no reason is rarely used IMHO. I think that so many companies are afraid of wrongful termination lawsuits that they go through many hoops to justifiably terminate someone in order to minimize those suits. I am unaware of anyone in my own company being terminated without very thorough documentation of the reason they are terminated. They might go to great lengths to find another reason to terminate someone other than the real cause, but I doubt that many are terminated without any reason being given.

They end up covering themselves by laying you off...

To the overall issue posted, I would say concealed is concealed...Even though I do not like the idea, and that no one I work with has ANY reason to worry about me shooting anyone I work with, unless they themselves are committing a criminal act against someone that is covered in the penal code regarding the use of force and deadly forcce...I know the second I react in that capacity, I will be looking for a new job...Which is the least of my concerns...

I've pretty much compramised mine and others safety by disarming and leaving my firearm locked up and secured in my vehicle...I've had no problems since that decision...

As for un-warranted searches of my vehicle on company property, (i.e. - publically accessable employee parking lots) I would refuse, then accept the termination, and then litigate from that standpoint...Haven't even come close to having or hearing of a problem like that anywhere, with anyone I know...

So I would say just leave it in your vehicle, accept that risk, adjust accordingly if you need a more secure method of locking that weapon and keeping it as inaccessable as possible from your average smash and grabber...

I think we are fine from that point...

I'm also sure that if someone on this forum has their vehicle broken into while at work, and their firearm is stolen, we'd have heard about it by now...This issue has been going on (discussed) for a few years now...

I stand to be corrected...

[hillfighter]

Weigh the risks and do what you need to do. That's a benefit and a burden of being an adult.

As far as policies go, I have a few of my own, and I argue the employer agreed to my policies when they hired me.

[goose]

And by having that policy your company is in violation of the Parking Lot Law that states you shall not have a policy that prohibits people having guns in their vehicles.

Does the law prohibit these types of policies? I read it as that the state law had precedence but I didn't read that the policies were unlawful. It is a hair splitting that I think applies to those of us working for companies with said policies.

[C-dub]

And by having that policy your company is in violation of the Parking Lot Law that states you shall not have a policy that prohibits people having guns in their vehicles.

Does the law prohibit these types of policies? I read it as that the state law had precedence but I didn't read that the policies were unlawful. It is a hair splitting that I think applies to those of us working for companies with said policies.

It does, but there is no penalty. In order to penalize a company someone would have to sue them for wrongful termination and then prove this is the reason they were fired.

In May, Senator Deuell (R, A+) made an official request for an AG opinion covering the rights of employees under SB321 (a/k/a "employer parking lot bill"). He did so in response to complaints made by employees about employers trying to assert absurd reasons to ignore the law that went into effect on Sept. 1, 2011.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R, A+) issued his AG Opinion (GA-0972) today and it is great! Employers trample the rights of gun owners at their peril. The entire opinion is attached, but the summary is as follows:

An employer subject to section 52.061 of the Labor Code may not ban the transport and storage of handguns in locked private vehicles by employees with concealed handgun licenses in employee parking areas by a posting the notice authorized by section 30.06 of the Penal Code.

A federally approved facility security plan under either the Maritime Transportation Security Act or the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards is not federal law that would preempt section 52.061 of the Labor Code.

No statute of which we are aware provides a specific remedy for employees whose employers violate section 52.061. And the Legislature has not authorized this office or any other state agency to take corrective action. Despite the lack of a statutory remedy, an aggrieved employee may, depending upon the circumstances, have the ability to sue the offending employer under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Thank you Senator Deuell and General Abbott!!

Chas.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59294&hilit=parkin ... t+employer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

S.B. No. 321



AN ACT
relating to an employee's transportation and storage of certain
firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or
controlled by the employee's employer.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 52, Labor Code, is amended by adding
Subchapter G to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER G. RESTRICTIONS ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE
TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF CERTAIN FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION
Sec. 52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO
OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer
may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully
possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or
ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked,
privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or
other parking area the employer provides for employees.

I added the red color to the text.