Vehicle searches?

[Kevinf2349]

Have you ever been told that you cannot take your firearms into the office or leave it in your vehicle in the parking lot? If not, then you should have nothing to fear. Of course if you have been told that then you may have a potential issue.

My guess is that they are just letting you know that they COULD search and not that they will. I think this is fairly common practise designed to discourage theft rather than to infringe your 2A rights....of course I could be wrong.

[jmorris]

My employer is a defense contractor, if that makes any difference.

Only if your work takes you onto Federal property. And that even depends. I'm civil service but work on a base that was turned over to the city some time back, and turned into a business park. The Air Force currently leases some buildings here but (and not a lot of people here realize this) not the parking lots with those buildings. So I can't wear it into work but the agency that runs the business park has no rules or postings concerning handguns so I can leave my handgun in the truck and not worry.

Even if the AF had leased the parking lot, the gate is a stones throw from my building and there's the backside of a business on the other side of the gate. I could park there and walk in, ten minutes at the most.

[C-dub]

In my case I do not remember ever being "told" by anyone that I cannot bring my concealed handgun anywhere on the property. It is only in the employee handbook. I also have been told by a person very high up in the company that they keep a gun in the car in the parking lot and from some things others have said they may also keep weapons in their vehicles.

I agree that it is more likely that the threat of "searches" would be to prevent theft. I avoid talking about guns at work, but there are a few that know of my CHL. Some of these are friends outside of work and in some cases we were friends before we both came to work here together.

[Kevinf2349]

If it is in the employers handbook then you can't actually take it into the building....at least that is my understanding, that is kind of like them giving you a verbal 30.06.

We also have it in the employee handbook, but the parking lot is different in our case, we were told we could leave our guns in there.

One of our high up Chief Officers is extremely pro gun and about 30% of the staff in our office are CHL holders so there is plenty of gun talk on our floor, and even some gun mags lying around for all to browse through. I know of one employee that actually still wears his holster in work!

[chamberc]

Enough stunts like this is how employers end up getting to deal with unions.

Unions are NEVER the answer and are one of the roots of the problems in our nation today.

[chamberc]

This is one of those issues that true conservatives struggle with. On the one hand, conservatives usually believe in very strong personal property rights... as to say, if you own the property, you can dictate what is acceptable to you on the property. For an employer, they can set up the rules for employment, and if you don't like them, you can go work elsewhere.

On the other hand, you have the 2nd amendment... which, as much as I hate to say "violate private property rights", I do believe trumps the personal property rights of employers.

While I strongly support the safe worker's act, and hope it passes next session, we have to be prepared that it continues to set the precedence of telling a private property owner what they can and can't do on their property... it's definitely a slippery slope.

[C-dub]

Good morning Kevin.

I would invite you to read or re-read the following according to the Texas DPS' own website.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... osting.htm

In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:
"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06 DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."

Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:
includes the language described by Paragraph (A)
i. in both English and Spanish;
ii. appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height;
iii. and is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

I underlined the text as copied from the DPS' website.

So, as discussed in another thread, unless this exact text (just the bolded part) is in the employee handbook, simply stating that one is not allowed to bring guns onsite is not equivilant to verbal notice and insufficient for legal prosecution. A person caught with a weapon onsite could and would probably still be fired, but could not be charged with anything unless they were actually given verbal notice at some time.

[chamberc]

A person caught with a weapon onsite could and would probably still be fired, but could not be charged with anything unless they were actually given verbal notice at some time.

Important to remember... the Handbook IS sufficient from a terms of employment perspective but NOT from a criminal/civil prosecution perspective.

[roberts]

Important to remember... the Handbook IS sufficient from a terms of employment perspective but NOT from a criminal/civil prosecution perspective.

It's like refusing to let them search your car. It's not illegal to deny consent but they can fire you.