TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:

OldSchool wrote:In my case, my next mailing address would be Leavenworth, and not a residential zip. Alternatives are necessary.

http://www.monster.com

Thanks, but that presumes I have the skill and brains to be employable elsewhere....

mea maxima culpa

Ameer wrote:mea maxima culpa

Bone, amicus bonus meus.

Oldgringo wrote:

b322da wrote:

Kahrry wrote: ...I guess squashing my 2nd amendment right doesn't count....

In view of a couple of comments here, I must note, simply so that we may be sure of just what the battle is, so that we might watch our language so as to not confuse ouselves, and so as to avoid "ready, fire, aim," the 2d Amendment only limits, to some as yet undetermined extent, the authority of the federal government, and, since Keller, the District of Columbia, and, since McDonald, state and local governments.

It has not yet been applied to limit the authority of your employer in this regard.

Elmo

Say again...please.

Kahrry said we're talking about squashing 2A rights.
b322da said we're talking about private employers. One has 2A rights when dealing with the federal, state, and local governments according to the court cases b322da cited, but there is not right now a legal RKBA on a private employer's property. I believe he said we should watch what we say and make sure it is accurate.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

b322da wrote:

Kahrry wrote: ...I guess squashing my 2nd amendment right doesn't count....

In view of a couple of comments here, I must note, simply so that we may be sure of just what the battle is, so that we might watch our language so as to not confuse ouselves, and so as to avoid "ready, fire, aim," the 2d Amendment only limits, to some as yet undetermined extent, the authority of the federal government, and, since Keller, the District of Columbia, and, since McDonald, state and local governments.

It has not yet been applied to limit the authority of your employer in this regard.

Elmo

Say again...please.

Kahrry said we're talking about squashing 2A rights.
b322da said we're talking about private employers. One has 2A rights when dealing with the federal, state, and local governments according to the court cases b322da cited, but there is not right now a legal RKBA on a private employer's property. I believe he said we should watch what we say and make sure it is accurate.

The jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution was explicitly applied to the States in those cases, but private property is sacrosanct (generally).
And, there will be quite the argument between RKBA and private property rights whenever that discussion comes up.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

b322da wrote:

Kahrry wrote: ...I guess squashing my 2nd amendment right doesn't count....

In view of a couple of comments here, I must note, simply so that we may be sure of just what the battle is, so that we might watch our language so as to not confuse ouselves, and so as to avoid "ready, fire, aim," the 2d Amendment only limits, to some as yet undetermined extent, the authority of the federal government, and, since Keller, the District of Columbia, and, since McDonald, state and local governments.

It has not yet been applied to limit the authority of your employer in this regard.

Elmo

Say again...please.

Kahrry said we're talking about squashing 2A rights.
b322da said we're talking about private employers. One has 2A rights when dealing with the federal, state, and local governments according to the court cases b322da cited, but there is not right now a legal RKBA on a private employer's property. I believe he said we should watch what we say and make sure it is accurate.

Thank you, I got a little confused with the long sentence in one paragraph covering multiple subjects. Since you've clarified the post, does your employer allow your licensed CC on company property?

Oldgringo wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

b322da wrote:

Kahrry wrote: ...I guess squashing my 2nd amendment right doesn't count....

In view of a couple of comments here, I must note, simply so that we may be sure of just what the battle is, so that we might watch our language so as to not confuse ouselves, and so as to avoid "ready, fire, aim," the 2d Amendment only limits, to some as yet undetermined extent, the authority of the federal government, and, since Keller, the District of Columbia, and, since McDonald, state and local governments.

It has not yet been applied to limit the authority of your employer in this regard.

Elmo

Say again...please.

Kahrry said we're talking about squashing 2A rights.
b322da said we're talking about private employers. One has 2A rights when dealing with the federal, state, and local governments according to the court cases b322da cited, but there is not right now a legal RKBA on a private employer's property. I believe he said we should watch what we say and make sure it is accurate.

Thank you, I got a little confused with the long sentence in one paragraph covering multiple subjects. Since you've clarified the post, does your employer allow your licensed CC on company property?

Why would my employer's policy be germane to the topic?

Thank you, I got a little confused with the long sentence in one paragraph covering multiple subjects. Since you've clarified the post, does your employer allow your licensed CC on company property?

[/quote]
Why would my employer's policy be germane to the topic?[/quote]

I dunno', [b]"Anti-Violence and Weapons Policy at my work" [/b] is the subject of the thread and you offered an authoritative interpretation of a post. My apologies. .

Oldgringo wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Thank you, I got a little confused with the long sentence in one paragraph covering multiple subjects. Since you've clarified the post, does your employer allow your licensed CC on company property?

Why would my employer's policy be germane to the topic?

I dunno', [b]"Anti-Violence and Weapons Policy at my work" [/b] is the subject of the thread and you offered an authoritative interpretation of a post. My apologies. .

By no means am I authoritative. As a matter of fact, I even specifically said, "I believe he said..." within my post previous to the part in which I offered my interpretation. The topic of whether one has second amendment rights on a private employer's property is germane to the topic of the OP's anti-violence and weapons policy at HIS work, but as I did not even allude to my own work situation, I'm still quite baffled as to why you brought it up. I sure wish you'd say what you mean and mean what you say so I don't have to try to figure out what the point is when you direct questions to me.

In any case, I have a question for the OP. Did the work climate change any after the consultants came through last year? Subjectively speaking, what kind of risk do you think you're at of being discovered and of adverse action being taken against you if you were? Sometimes when consultants re-do everything, it's on paper only and everything continues as it was before in the work culture but sometimes the whole climate of a place changes and everyone is walking on pins and needles. Other than the policy itself changing, how do you think the policy change is likely to affect you?

Hoi Polloi wrote:

I sure wish you'd say what you mean and mean what you say so I don't have to try to figure out what the point is when you direct questions to me.

My apologies again. What I meant to say was, and still is, "...does your employer allow your licensed CC{W} on company property?"

Kahrry wrote: Then the 4th paragraph states, "All employees of [my company] are prohibited from using, possessing, or concealing any weapons, whether intentional or not, while on the premises of [the company] or while engaged in work-related activities for [the company], regardless of whether the person is licensed to carry the weapon. Weapons include firearms, handguns, explosive weapons, chemical dispensing devices, clubs, or other weapons."

Maybe it's time to find another job. Or carry anyway (since you're carrying concealed, there should be no problem). Sure, you're breaking company policy. Everyone does, in one way or another.

Corporate policy has nothing at all to do with what's legal. If you violate policy, they can't have you arrested, but they *can* have you fired.

BTW, "premises" (according to the state of Texas) doe NOT including parking structures of parking lots. If your parking lot doesn't have gated and controlled access, you can lock your weapon in your car and legally refuse a "random search" by your company, so you can keep your gun locked in your car. If your car is locked, and the window are rolled up (and the gun is not in plain sight), you have a demonstrated reasonable expectation of privacy, and cannot be forced to unlock it without a warrant. Lastly, you can always park somewhere other than the company parking lot.

Regarding not having a firearm "while conducting company business", if you work from home and you happen to own a gun, you are "technically" violating company policy. I worked for a place that instituted this very same policy statement, and they had to amend it to account for working from home. You should request the same modification.

The very same company had a policy against having guns in your car, and that they could search the car any time they wanted. I successfully challenged them on that because I would not consent to them searching my car without a warrant, they couldn't legally detain me, and the parking lot not only had no controlled access, but was indeed shared by multiple businesses that had customers coming and going to conduct business. They claim it was to prevent theft of company policy, but also said that if they found any other violations of company policy, well, I'm in big trouble. My challenge was that due to the nature of the parking lot's accessibility by the non-employee public, and because the car was locked, they couldn't legally search my car - for anything. The policy was stricken from the employee manual.

jsimmons wrote:Corporate policy has nothing at all to do with what's legal. If you violate policy, they can't have you arrested, but they *can* have you fired.

BTW, "premises" (according to the state of Texas) doe NOT including parking structures of parking lots. If your parking lot doesn't have gated and controlled access, you can lock your weapon in your car and legally refuse a "random search" by your company, so you can keep your gun locked in your car. If your car is locked, and the window are rolled up (and the gun is not in plain sight), you have a demonstrated reasonable expectation of privacy, and cannot be forced to unlock it without a warrant. Lastly, you can always park somewhere other than the company parking lot.

Regarding not having a firearm "while conducting company business", if you work from home and you happen to own a gun, you are "technically" violating company policy. I worked for a place that instituted this very same policy statement, and they had to amend it to account for working from home. You should request the same modification.

The very same company had a policy against having guns in your car, and that they could search the car any time they wanted. I successfully challenged them on that because I would not consent to them searching my car without a warrant, they couldn't legally detain me, and the parking lot not only had no controlled access, but was indeed shared by multiple businesses that had customers coming and going to conduct business. They claim it was to prevent theft of company policy, but also said that if they found any other violations of company policy, well, I'm in big trouble. My challenge was that due to the nature of the parking lot's accessibility by the non-employee public, and because the car was locked, they couldn't legally search my car - for anything. The policy was stricken from the employee manual.

Wow -- they must have really LOVED you! Get many raises?

jsimmons wrote:Corporate policy has nothing at all to do with what's legal. If you violate policy, they can't have you arrested, but they *can* have you fired.

BTW, "premises" (according to the state of Texas) doe NOT including parking structures of parking lots. If your parking lot doesn't have gated and controlled access, you can lock your weapon in your car and legally refuse a "random search" by your company, so you can keep your gun locked in your car. If your car is locked, and the window are rolled up (and the gun is not in plain sight), you have a demonstrated reasonable expectation of privacy, and cannot be forced to unlock it without a warrant. Lastly, you can always park somewhere other than the company parking lot.

Regarding not having a firearm "while conducting company business", if you work from home and you happen to own a gun, you are "technically" violating company policy. I worked for a place that instituted this very same policy statement, and they had to amend it to account for working from home. You should request the same modification.

The very same company had a policy against having guns in your car, and that they could search the car any time they wanted. I successfully challenged them on that because I would not consent to them searching my car without a warrant, they couldn't legally detain me, and the parking lot not only had no controlled access, but was indeed shared by multiple businesses that had customers coming and going to conduct business. They claim it was to prevent theft of company policy, but also said that if they found any other violations of company policy, well, I'm in big trouble. My challenge was that due to the nature of the parking lot's accessibility by the non-employee public, and because the car was locked, they couldn't legally search my car - for anything. The policy was stricken from the employee manual.

There are employers who are allowed control of the parking lot, and car searches have implied consent once inside the security fence. At my firm, people have been written up for having portable gas cans in their vehicle, as "dangerous items."
As always, the answer is to "find another job" -- but the choice here is not about accepting the tradeoffs vs. employment, but there exist more important personal reasons. And that's all I can say on that point, sorry....

OldSchool wrote:There are employers who are allowed control of the parking lot, and car searches have implied consent once inside the security fence. At my firm, people have been written up for having portable gas cans in their vehicle, as "dangerous items."

I always try to have at least 10 gallons of flammable liquid in my car at all times.