TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:... The policies against having weapons on company property were recommended by lawyers for liability reasons, not because the management is anti-gun.

- Jim

Agree, the owner of our company is pro gun, he goes hunting and we've talked about what guns each one of us ownes. There are several other employees here that hunt/shoot regulally.

And we still have a page in our company handbook that limits handgun poesssion on company property.

I feel that this is not aimed at the CHL holder-- the GG's; the one's who've gone thru background checks and have passed 'squeaky clean,' but, for the few lesser desirable folk who we tend to hire for more menial tasks, who might not have that 'squeaky clean' record.

Just like showing the DL when writing a check. In the '60's noebody showed a DL for a check, now we all do, but, what's a check anymore except something you mail to the electric company? I use my debit card anymore for purchases at a store.

The gun policy is not aimed squarely at me, nor at any other CHL holder, but it has to be there to insure that the workers that we have that aren't as 'squeaky clean' as the CHL holder don't carry at work. And, if they do, there is the reason to let them go.

I would not push it, but my owner knows I go to the gun range during lunch hours... he's gone with me!

Russ

kw5kw wrote:The gun policy is not aimed squarely at me, nor at any other CHL holder, but it has to be there to insure that the workers that we have that aren't as 'squeaky clean' as the CHL holder don't carry at work.

Of course, the rule does nothing to prevent criminals and lunatics from bringing firearms into the workplace. Metal detectors are required for that.

These rules are both useless and unjust, but a lot of things in life are.

- Jim

nitrogen wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

tvone wrote:I work for a NY based company that has strict firearm policies. I'd prefer to remain off of any lists that my employer may choose to request. I'm already on their radar screen as the gun guy, and choose not to give them cause to terminate my employment. I have a great job.

Understandable.

For your employer to find out you have a Texas CHL, they'd need to send a specific request to the DPS with your name and contact info.
It's not something that should show up on a standard background check.

I can still understand your position, though. It's an "open secret" where I work that i'm the gun guy, as well. Luckelly, most of my coworkers locally are either agnostic about guns, or pro-gun.

My first day on this forum and my first post :)

It is my understanding that the DPS would also notify YOU, as the CHL holder, that an inquiry was made.

kw5kw wrote:

seamusTX wrote:... The policies against having weapons on company property were recommended by lawyers for liability reasons, not because the management is anti-gun.

- Jim

Agree, the owner of our company is pro gun, he goes hunting and we've talked about what guns each one of us ownes. There are several other employees here that hunt/shoot regulally.

And we still have a page in our company handbook that limits handgun poesssion on company property.

I feel that this is not aimed at the CHL holder-- the GG's; the one's who've gone thru background checks and have passed 'squeaky clean,' but, for the few lesser desirable folk who we tend to hire for more menial tasks, who might not have that 'squeaky clean' record.

( . . . )

The gun policy is not aimed squarely at me, nor at any other CHL holder, but it has to be there to insure that the workers that we have that aren't as 'squeaky clean' as the CHL holder don't carry at work. And, if they do, there is the reason to let them go.

Having been a union official for some time now, being familiar with labor law and contracts and workplace regulations, I've found that a great many things can hinge on a simple word choice.

In your case, since you seem to have some influence with the business owner, you might want to whisper a word in his ear: "illegal".

Inserting that one word into the employee manual would probably slip right by the insurance weenies, but would make a world of difference. If the employee manual bans illegal possession of firearms or weapons, then legal possession is okay.

When my wife switched from being a self-employed independent contractor, to working for a major nationwide speciality retailer, I read her employee handbook carefully. I was very surprised to find no mention of firearms or other weapons. But, they are very hard on possessing, using, or being under the influence of, any illegal substances.

Since most handbooks start with boilerplate language, I figure the omission was deliberate. Cheers to them!

Mary doesn't have a CHL or carry her Taurus M85 while "traveling" (despite my nagging), but I'm working on her. I'm 98% Scot, but I married a tight woman, and she's unwilling to spend the money. She promises to get a revolver & pistol license when we move to New Hampshire (they're only $10 for residents). Being at least as libertarian as I am, she really objects to paying the government for the favor of exercising a basic human right.

Kevin

If you are fired from a job in Texas without serious performance issues, or repeated, written warnings over policy issues...You stand a really good chance of winning an unemployment hearing.
Get paid to search for a new job...just a thought

Mikel wrote:If you are fired from a job in Texas without serious performance issues, or repeated, written warnings over policy issues...You stand a really good chance of winning an unemployment hearing.
Get paid to search for a new job...just a thought

Yeah, let society support you.

You've got me wrong there. Unemployment claims can hurt the company. In no way do I mean for the poster to live off of society for awhile.

As the owner/director of two businesses (small trailer manufacturing and and oil trading company), we chose to add a sign to the door of our offices stating "YOU AND YOUR LEGALLY CONCEALED HANDGUN ARE WELCOME HERE!).

I've had dozens of "attaboys" for this and only one complaint and I told her to take her business elsewhere... like communist China for example...

Love that response.

Tecumseh wrote: Are companies actually checking their employees CCW status? Somehow that seems wrong. I think that a company should not have the ability to see if I am a CHL holder.

All the more reason to pass legislation that prevents people requesting information on who has CHL's.

pistolchamp wrote:As the owner/director of two businesses (small trailer manufacturing and and oil trading company), we chose to add a sign to the door of our offices stating "YOU AND YOUR LEGALLY CONCEALED HANDGUN ARE WELCOME HERE!).

I've had dozens of "attaboys" for this and only one complaint and I told her to take her business elsewhere... like communist China for example...

You got another Atta-Boy here!

I'm not so sure I'd be all up in arms about a law enforcement inquiry to my CHL status would bother me too much...Actually not at all because I know that from time to time I tend to be afflicted from "Leadfootitis"...And I am grateful for the reminder(s) I get from time to time about that illness...

But seriously, if I had the choice, and right off the top of my head I'm not so sure about this, if the mechanism is in place, but if a non-law enforcement inquiry were to be made, I would appreciate the courtesy to know who and when that had been made...

Not that I'm being critical, but I shudder at the thought if the office in Austin actually fields these inquiries...

I'm probably wrong, I just don't think they "give" out information to anyone, and not keep a record of those inquiries if they do...

This is the text of Title 37, Part I, Chapter 6, Subchapter h, Rule §6.113:

(a) On written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, the department shall disclose to any person or agency whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under the Act. Information concerning a license holder that is subject to disclosure under this section includes the license holder's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code.

(b) The department shall notify a license holder of any request for information made relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the person or agency making the request.

- Jim

(a) On written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, the department shall disclose to any person or agency whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under the Act. Information concerning a license holder that is subject to disclosure under this section includes the license holder's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code.

(b) The department shall notify a license holder of any request for information made relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the person or agency making the request.

So, if person/business "ABC" inquires if I have a CHL then the department will send me a letter stating that person/business "ABC" has inquired if I (License holder) a CHL or not, and the following information has been provided.
License (yes/no)
Name
Dob
M/F
race (not Nascar)
and my zip code (neat if it was in binary)

and this is all that's given out.

And what am I told about the requestor?
Name?
Address?
reason?
what?

Why don't we find out, somebody request my info and then we'll know what they tell and what they don't tell to whom.

That sounds like a plan. I have never read or heard of anyone having an inquiry made in Texas.

P.S.: The DPS web site doesn't say how much it costs or where to make the request. People say they don't answer the phone. Maybe it's a catch-22.

- Jim