Anti-Violence and Weapons Policy at my work

[OldSchool]

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.

Shhhhhh!!! (Concealed is concealed.)

[WildBill]

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.

Shhhhhh!!! (Concealed is concealed.)

As long as security doesn't take off the gas cap and light a match to look into the gas tank.

[b322da]

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.

I will try to use both short words and short sentences. But there is a point beyond which I refuse to dumb down, Oldgringo, even here.

A question for you, jsimmons, with respect to your statement above. Suppose the owner of your place of employment, or his authorized representative, reads to you the corporate policy on this, using short words and short sentences, and then has you sign a paper recognizing that you understand the policy.

If you then violate that policy by carrying a concealed handgun on the premises where forbidden, might you be subject to arrest for a criminal offense?

The answer to this question, which I leave open, may be of some importance if you follow the implicit suggestion of some here who have, in my opinion, suggested that you might just ignore the policy. Should the answer to my question be "No," then these commentators have done no wrong. Should, however, the answer be "Yes," then might they arguably have solicited you to violate the law, at the worst extreme becoming accessories before the fact?

Just askin',

Elmo

[tacticool]

Suppose the owner of your place of employment, or his authorized representative, reads to you the corporate policy on this

That's oral notice. You might as well say, "Suppose they posted a real 30.06 sign."

[ScottDLS]

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.

I will try to use both short words and short sentences. But there is a point beyond which I refuse to dumb down, Oldgringo, even here.

A question for you, jsimmons, with respect to your statement above. Suppose the owner of your place of employment, or his authorized representative, reads to you the corporate policy on this, using short words and short sentences, and then has you sign a paper recognizing that you understand the policy.

If you then violate that policy by carrying a concealed handgun on the premises where forbidden, might you be subject to arrest for a criminal offense?

The answer to this question, which I leave open, may be of some importance if you follow the implicit suggestion of some here who have, in my opinion, suggested that you might just ignore the policy. Should the answer to my question be "No," then these commentators have done no wrong. Should, however, the answer be "Yes," then might they arguably have solicited you to violate the law, at the worst extreme becoming accessories before the fact?

Just askin',

Elmo

Nobody is soliciting anyone to anything. Your example, as described, might represent oral notice under TXPC 30.06. The example described in the original post clearly doesn't represent written notice. And further this corporate policy still has nothing to do with the criminal law, as jsimmons pointed out. The reading out loud of the specific section on weapons might...if it constitutes oral notice, but the simple creation of the corporate policy, doesn't. There are numerous other parts of the policy described that are irrelevant to TXPC 30.06, even if oral notice were received (e.g.You were in your own car off company property, or at another location on company business).

In this forum, a number of us offer our opinions on what we would do, or even what we believe others might be justified in doing...In no case have I seen someone solicit another to commit a crime. It's bad form to suggest otherwise.

Just sayin'

[Kahrry]

[/quote]
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?[/quote]

A little. Moreso after a few of the ladies were concerned that they could no carry pepper spray. This is much the same way I feel about not carrying my Kahr. For the most part, most of the employees were not affected as they choose not to carry any form of weapon for protection. When I tried to ask questions in a open staff meeting for the introduction of the new handbook a year ago, I was met with a front of inconvenience for even pressing the issue about a firearm. I also brough to their attention that I am an avid hunter and often carry my shotgun in my truck during dove season so I can leave straight from work to catch an evening hunt. The jist of the response was "don't ask, don't tell". I remember pressing a little harder and expressing my discomfort since I could, at someone's convenience, be violating policy or not.

[anygunanywhere]

Here is my $.02 worth. Consider it my contribution to thought stimulus.

I post this even though there are those at work who read this. I have been here 32 years and believe I am safe in stating what I do and believe. In stating so I will not change what I do. People who know me already knpw I am a 2A absolutist, but I am also an absolutist on several other topics and have never been shy about expressing my views.

I decide when and how I am armed. I decide when I am not armed. I take lots of different factors into consideration when I decide whether to be armed or not. Mrs. Anygun is the only one who ever knows whether I am armed and sometimes she even asks me because she does not always know.

Based on the premise that I decide when I am armed or not, I will never consent to a non-LEO searching my vehicle or person. Never. If I am asked to consent to a search then I will just shut up and leave. If I lose my job, so be it. I was looking for a job when I found this one. I am employable even at my age. In a certain city in the Houston area, the local city LEO patrol the refinery in the city. Their patrol car has the same graphics as the city, but instead of "police" it says "patrol". I have seen them stop individuals on the refinery premises. If they ever stop me and ask to search my vehicle this is the way the conversation will go:

Me: You want to search my vehicle under the authority of the refinery as a private security guard or as an LEO representing the city?
Him: Security representing the refinery.
Me: I will just leave. You cannot detain me so I will be on my way. My work is done.
If'n he says LEO: Get a warrant. You have no probable cause. I will just call my attorney while you do this. Am I being detained or am I free to go?

My vehicle, my pockets, my computer case, everything I have is mine and is no concern to anyone else. I do not care what you have in your stuff. Everyone else's private property rights concerns end where my private property rights begin. Keep your hands off of me and out of my stuff and we will get along just fine. If you think I am committing a crime, there are ways to deal with it. Go do it. Otherwise, nothing I am doing is of concern to you.

I like how TAM put it in his post earlier. Brilliant work, my friend, absolutely brilliant. This and DADT works great.

Your own personal safety is what counts, take care of yourself.

Whenever something happens that illustrates people not being able to take care of themselves because of rules, point it out.

Anygunanywhere

[jsimmons]

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.

I will try to use both short words and short sentences. But there is a point beyond which I refuse to dumb down, Oldgringo, even here.

There really is no need to be insulting.

A question for you, jsimmons, with respect to your statement above. Suppose the owner of your place of employment, or his authorized representative, reads to you the corporate policy on this, using short words and short sentences, and then has you sign a paper recognizing that you understand the policy.

If you then violate that policy by carrying a concealed handgun on the premises where forbidden, might you be subject to arrest for a criminal offense?

Not at all. They can't have you arrested if you're legally allowed to a) have a gun, b) carry concealed (unless the business is posted with the proper 30.06 signage), or c) keep it locked in your car. As long as you are following the law, the most that can happen to you is terminate your employment. End of story. After all, you only violated corporate policy - you did NOT break the law. If the building is posted, you can still carry in the parking lot but you cannot carry *in the building* (AKA "premises"). The current "parking lot bill" is a move to prevent employers from legally including the parking lot in their corporate policy regarding firearms possession on "premises".

[jsimmons]

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 property, 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?

They didn't have the stomach for litigation, and I convinced the owner of the place not only that I was not going to be a pushover regarding my 2nd and 4th amendment rights, but that I was right and would go to any legal lengths necessary to assert those rights. And for those watching, remember, this is a publicly accessible parking lot. As a matter of fact, many times, my car was parked so deep in the parking lot as to be completely free of observation from any point in the company's building.

I just hate being told my rights don't count. Seriously - how DARE they tell me that?

[jsimmons]

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....

And if the parking lot has controlled access, where only employees are allowed, that's a whole different kettle of fish, ain't it. Here's my work history for the last 10 years in Texas:

Defense contractor at Brooks AFB (before it became a "city base" - no firearms allowed - ever (controlled access).
Civilian employer - Shared lot, no guns on "premises", no policy on guns in car
Defense contractor - Shared lot, no guns on "premises", struck down policy on having guns when on company business, struck down entire parking lot search clause (changed to working on Ft Sam, so no carry at all - controlled access)
Civilian employer - Licensed concealed carry allowed/encouraged on premises (of the 50+ employees, fewer than 10 were not armed)
Civilian employer - No carry on premises, specifically allowed to keep gun in car
Civilian employer - Licensed concealed carry allowed/encouraged on premises
Defense contractor - Randolph AFB, no carry allowed (controlled access)

As you can see, I've seen pretty much every combination of what is and isn't allowed.

[b322da]

A question for you, jsimmons, with respect to your statement above. Suppose the owner of your place of employment, or his authorized representative, reads to you the corporate policy on this, using short words and short sentences, and then has you sign a paper recognizing that you understand the policy.

If you then violate that policy by carrying a concealed handgun on the premises where forbidden, might you be subject to arrest for a criminal offense?

Not at all.

Obviously my good-faith effort at pointing out a hidden danger this conversation posed to new CHL holders, or prospective holders, was either incorrect or failed. Or both.

From your response I take it that it is your opinion that violation of the oral notice you received from the owner or his authorized representative in my example was ineffective to lay you open to a Class A misdemeanor charge. I did not suggest that you would be arrested. I simply asked whether you might be subject to arrest.

Elmo

[kahrfreak]

A question for you, jsimmons, with respect to your statement above. Suppose the owner of your place of employment, or his authorized representative, reads to you the corporate policy on this, using short words and short sentences, and then has you sign a paper recognizing that you understand the policy.

The policy as original quoted:

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."

Interesting use of "premises": It would appear that the employer is using an all-encompassing definition for "premises." Strictly speaking, "premises" with respect to CC seems to be well understood by just about everyone here. That said, I don't see any violation of criminal law if the employee chooses to carry off premises as defined in the context of CC. Sure, the employee could be fired, but that's not a criminal action.

Likewise, the employer might wish that its employees do not carry while on "work-related activities," but that's certainly not enforceable by law either. In fact, 30.06 is rather clear that "written communications" is limited to the language that's specified in 30.06 (30.06(c)(3)). I would question if this could even be considered legal notice.

So I stand by my not-so-implicit recommendation that concealed carry is concealed carry, and that my reading of this would not discourage me from carrying concealed if this were my employer. Am I condoning illegal behavior? Of course not, given the vague wording of the policy.

[Oldgringo]

I will try to use both short words and short sentences. But there is a point beyond which I refuse to dumb down, Oldgringo, even here.

Thank you. Periods and paragraphs are your friends when trying to make a point, buckaroo. Keep workin' on it.

[jframe.38]

1. Keep your mouth shut at work about CHL. Concealed means concealed.
2. Carry anyways. They have there policy, which is to not care about my personal security. I have my policy carry 24/7 wherever legal.
3. HR are not your friends. They are scumbags. Take responsibility for your own safety, and ignore the HR consultant's malarkey. Keep your mouth shut. Carry. Stay safe.

That's my take.

[3dfxMM]

30.06 makes no mention of premises so how the company or the the state define the term is irrelevant in this context.