TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

5pins wrote:If I understand this correctly and you are an employee then the employer doesn’t need to provide notification.

In the situation I'm describing I am not an employee. Using their language I would be a visitor or a client. This company was employed to do work for my company.

A) what is your own company's policy?
B) unless covered under a contract, how is a vendor's policy supposed to govern what their customer's employees may or may not do, unless their customer's employees have been given official notice?

If I were you, I would be much more concerned about your own employer's policies than I would be with your vendor's policies.

The OP knows that the client, vendor, or whatever the relationship is does not want armed people on their premises. Their management probably now know that he asked. 2+2=4 the last time I checked.

Messing up a business relationship can pretty much end a career. What color is your parachute?

- Jim

Well gentlemen all this is speculation. I would still like to hear what Charles or some other attorney has to say. To the OP don't carry there. Remember, if you don't make any waves there won't be any waves.

MoJo wrote:Again, IANAL but, I am a CHL Instructor. I have to agree with purplehood. If the notice came from a person in authority then you've been notified don't carry. If your contact person is not someone in management then you may be OK. I'd like to hear what Charles thinks about this.

If those words were spoken verbally, then the OP would have "effective notice" pursuant to TPC §30.06. If the notice was given in written form such as an email, then the OP has not been given "effective notice" required by TPC §30.06.

"Verbal notice" is the spoken work and only the spoken word, not an email. As for an arrest and legal fees, yes that can happen, but LEO's need to understand that no officer can make a good faith arrest for something that is not illegal. Doing so is a civil rights violation and a §1983 lawsuit could and should follow. An argument that TPC §30.06 is unclear will fail; it clearly states "language identical to the following . . ."

I'm not encouraging anyone to carry anywhere they feel uncomfortable. I just don't like to see "our people" giving up statutory protection that was intentionally put into TPC §30.06. It's clear as a bell and that's why there is no case law on the issue.

Chas.

Charles,

Will you clarify in light of TAM's post? Would verbal notice be able to go from a legitimate representative (HR person) through another employee to a third party? What if the HR person was only intending to convey company policy to that employee and there was not an understanding that he was charged to report it to others? What if the HR person told him to tell anyone asking that it isn't allowed? How does the message going down the daisy chain affect the legality of it?

Example scenario:
Let's say the OP decided to carry after the above occurred as he reported it. The go-between who talked to HR is sitting at a break in the meeting and he brings up the email in chit-chat. "Sorry that you can't carry in here, dude. That stinks." Is the OP then legally obligated to get up and walk out to disarm?

Communication is a two way process, and while one may send out a "gojillion"tm Emails pertaining to any number of subjects, unless receipt of the information is acknowledged by the targeted individual, communication has not been effected.

Do what you think is best.

Hoi Polloi wrote: Would verbal notice be able to go from a legitimate representative (HR person) through another employee to a third party?

The law states that the verbal notice has to be from the owner, or someone with the apparent authority to act for the owner. It all depends on if the employee that told him had the apparent authority to speak on behalf of the owner. I would say that a HR Department would have that authority, but a random employee would not. That is just my opinion.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

Hoi Polloi wrote: Example scenario:
Let's say the OP decided to carry after the above occurred as he reported it. The go-between who talked to HR is sitting at a break in the meeting and he brings up the email in chit-chat. "Sorry that you can't carry in here, dude. That stinks." Is the OP then legally obligated to get up and walk out to disarm?

Once again, depends on who actually says it. If the employee is a Regional VP, then Maybe, if it's the Janitor, I would say no.

I Personally Think of it this way. If the person who says it has the authority to hire construction workers to come remodel all or part the building, without having to request approval from someone higher than themselves, then I would say that they have the authority of the owner of the building.
If they can not, and would need the signoff of someone above them, then they do not have authority over the building. That's the easiest way I can think to determine that.

dicion wrote:The law states that the verbal notice has to be from the owner, or someone with the apparent authority to act for the owner. It all depends on if the employee that told him had the apparent authority to speak on behalf of the owner. I would say that a HR Department would have that authority, but a random employee would not. That is just my opinion.

If someone fails to cover up and shut up, as the latter already has failed to happen, how many nights do you want to spend in jail with Spike and Loco, and how much do you want to spend to establish case law?

Are employers eager to hire in your field of work? They are not in mine. Is your wife an RKBA activist that is willing to eat rice and beans while you work this thing out?

- Jim

My two cents worth ... my CHL instructor emphasized over and over again concealed means concealed. I tell no one (except my wife and a few friends that have CHLs) that I have a CHL and carry 24/7 (except where specifically prohibited by law). The only way anyone would ever learn that I'm carrying is when that person looking down the wrong end of the barrel.
Thanks, as always, for the informative posts.

Hoi Polloi wrote:Charles,

Will you clarify in light of TAM's post? Would verbal notice be able to go from a legitimate representative (HR person) through another employee to a third party? What if the HR person was only intending to convey company policy to that employee and there was not an understanding that he was charged to report it to others? What if the HR person told him to tell anyone asking that it isn't allowed? How does the message going down the daisy chain affect the legality of it?

Example scenario:
Let's say the OP decided to carry after the above occurred as he reported it. The go-between who talked to HR the is sitting at a break in the meeting and he brings up the email in chit-chat. "Sorry that you can't carry in here, dude. That stinks." Is the OP then legally obligated to get up and walk out to disarm?

As dicion noted, TPC §30.06 requires that effective notice be given by the property owner or someone with apparent authority to speak for the owner. While I wouldn't hesitate to carry anywhere that does not have a compliant 30.06 sign, I would not carry anywhere I was given verbal notice by anyone other than a janitor. Whether someone has "apparent authority" is a question of fact for a jury and that's too much of a risk in my view.

Chas.

TPC §30.06 wrote:(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

You've got to watch out for janitors sometimes ....as part of my "responsibilities" (ie - Son Of Boss, said Boss is often away due to quasi-retirement) for the office building I sometimes wear the janitor hat...and sometimes even announce myself as such (ie - checking the Women's restroom)...you know the old saying "(almost) chief cook and bottle washer"...of course, we welcome CHL, a few of our tenants are ex-cops and CHL holders.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:While I wouldn't hesitate to carry anywhere that does not have a compliant 30.06 sign, I would not carry anywhere I was given verbal notice by anyone other than a janitor.

PUCKER wrote:You've got to watch out for janitors sometimes ....as part of my "responsibilities" (ie - Son Of Boss, said Boss is often away due to quasi-retirement) for the office building I sometimes wear the janitor hat...and sometimes even announce myself as such (ie - checking the Women's restroom)...you know the old saying "(almost) chief cook and bottle washer"...of course, we welcome CHL, a few of our tenants are ex-cops and CHL holders.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:While I wouldn't hesitate to carry anywhere that does not have a compliant 30.06 sign, I would not carry anywhere I was given verbal notice by anyone other than a janitor.

And the janitor may indeed be in charge of the building if he's the only one there.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:Charles,

Will you clarify in light of TAM's post? Would verbal notice be able to go from a legitimate representative (HR person) through another employee to a third party? What if the HR person was only intending to convey company policy to that employee and there was not an understanding that he was charged to report it to others? What if the HR person told him to tell anyone asking that it isn't allowed? How does the message going down the daisy chain affect the legality of it?

Example scenario:
Let's say the OP decided to carry after the above occurred as he reported it. The go-between who talked to HR the is sitting at a break in the meeting and he brings up the email in chit-chat. "Sorry that you can't carry in here, dude. That stinks." Is the OP then legally obligated to get up and walk out to disarm?

As dicion noted, TPC §30.06 requires that effective notice be given by the property owner or someone with apparent authority to speak for the owner. While I wouldn't hesitate to carry anywhere that does not have a compliant 30.06 sign, I would not carry anywhere I was given verbal notice by anyone other than a janitor. Whether someone has "apparent authority" is a question of fact for a jury and that's too much of a risk in my view.

Chas.

TPC §30.06 wrote:(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

. It's like my Momma (RIP) used to tell me, "if you have to ask, you already know the answer".

The Annoyed Man wrote: A) what is your own company's policy?
B) unless covered under a contract, how is a vendor's policy supposed to govern what their customer's employees may or may not do, unless their customer's employees have been given official notice?

If I were you, I would be much more concerned about your own employer's policies than I would be with your vendor's policies.

A. My employer's policy explicitly allows employees with CHL's to carry weapons on company property.
B. I agree, and I don't think it can.

MoJo wrote:Well gentlemen all this is speculation. I would still like to hear what Charles or some other attorney has to say. To the OP don't carry there. Remember, if you don't make any waves there won't be any waves.

After looking through all the responses so far I pretty much agree with Charles: I don't think I would be in violation but I'm not willing to take the risk of testing the law.