TexasCHLforum.com

NOPE NOT FIRED NO POLICY AGAINST GUNS and did you read the first page

Had a sign made and it came out to 24 1/8 in. X 24 1/8 in.

The 30.06 requirements only apply to prosecution for Trespass by a CHL. Not HR policy.

Laws and company policy are different things. For example, if I CC outdoors on campus, it's not illegal but I can be punished because it violates policy.
Firearms, illegal knives, clubs, and prohibited weapons are not allowed in or on university property.

Last Time I checked someone has to tell you that you can not have a gun before they can just fire you for having one

AND JUST TO CLAIFY my husband worked for this company for 9 years before they fired him.

TxBlonde wrote:Last Time I checked someone has to tell you that you can not have a gun before they can just fire you for having one

That is one way, but they can also have in the company handbook in any wording that firearms are prohibited in order to fire someone. Your husband's former company does not appear to have had that in their policy. I think they could also just have a gunbuster sign on the door and that would indicate company policy.

The requirements for prosecution are more strict. Someone can either be told orally or a proper 30.06 sign can be posted for all to see or the proper wording can be placed in the company handbook. If it is only in the company handbook they must be able to prove that your husband was given a handbook. From my experience, companies that are cautious will make each employee sign a form stating that the have received and read and understand everything in the employee handbook.

Go to page 7 Nothing in hand book about No Gun and in a Under other Depo a previous supervisor of my husband admitted the company had no policy against gun until 3 days after they fired my husband

C-dub wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:Last Time I checked someone has to tell you that you can not have a gun before they can just fire you for having one

That is one way, but they can also have in the company handbook in any wording that firearms are prohibited in order to fire someone. Your husband's former company does not appear to have had that in their policy. I think they could also just have a gunbuster sign on the door and that would indicate company policy.

The requirements for prosecution are more strict. Someone can either be told orally or a proper 30.06 sign can be posted for all to see or the proper wording can be placed in the company handbook. If it is only in the company handbook they must be able to prove that your husband was given a handbook. From my experience, companies that are cautious will make each employee sign a form stating that the have received and read and understand everything in the employee handbook.

IANAL, but you have to remember that this is a civil suit, not a criminal trial, so the proper wording or height of the letters is not really relevant as he is not charged with trespass. The manager who worked at the company testified under oath that there was no gun policy until three days after the man was fired. The sign in question was not even at the same building where the man worked.

I understand and agree that at the time TxBlonde's husband was fired it doesn't appear that the company had a policy or given notice that handguns were not allowed. I was merely responding to TxBlonde's thought that a person must be orally told they cannot have a gun on the premises in order to be fired.

A very unfortunate event. My sympathies to the OP.
The case isn't being tried here in the forum. I'm thinking there's a courtroom someplace where that will happen. I hope all of this conjecture has offered some useful information that the OP"s attorney can use, though.

C-dub before they fired him they tired with all their might to have him fired

TxBlonde wrote:C-dub before they fired him they tired with all their might to have him fired

I'm not sure I understand this statement. Was your husband under contract or just an employee? As Steve said, unless you are under contract an employee can be let go for no reason and as he and I have both said, if the company is dumb enough to state a reason it had better be a valid and provable one. Were they trying to have upper management fire him or find some violation to fire him for? It sounds very similar to a friend of mine. This company of your husband's or his boss doesn't sound very bright.

Other than actually being fired, the boss of a very close friend of mine, also a truck driver, tried a few times to have him fired last year. The problem is that he is too valuable to the company at this time and the company does not want him to go. His boss was told to let it go and stop bothering him.

Sorry meant to say arrested They tired to tell the cops he had to be arrested.

RiverCity.45 wrote:The case isn't being tried here in the forum. I'm thinking there's a courtroom someplace where that will happen. I hope all of this conjecture has offered some useful information that the OP"s attorney can use, though.

The OP stated that the trial is scheduled for April. The attorneys are currently deposing witnesses. I also hope that some of the posts are useful for the OP's attorney.

TxBlonde wrote:Last Time I checked someone has to tell you that you can not have a gun before they can just fire you for having one

Actually, no they don't. There are people fired all of the time, right or wrong, for reasons that don't make sense. At that point you have to do what you are doing now and fight it. And, while you may get an arbitrator or judge to rule in your favor, the problem will now be that your husband would have to return to a potentially hostile work environment if he goes back to that company. And you can surely bet that they will tell him he can't have a gun on property with witnesses in place when told and they have 30.06 signs now posted.

Bottom line, sounds like he was unjustly fired, but burden of proof will be on you guys with a costly legal battle. Good luck on the case!