Latest on ability to park with gun in car in emloyer garage

[Blinking Dog]

I am a bit behind on all the latest CHL rules and hoping someone could fill me in. Here's my situation, I park in a parking garage owned by my employer, and access to the garage is limited to employees only (no general public parking allowed). Access is limited by a wooden arm gate which is controlled by key card reader. Employee handbook says no guns on company property.

That's the background. As you might guess, I'd like to leave a gun in the car while at work. Based on my situation, would the CHL regs let me keep a gun in the car or am I out of luck?

Thanks in advance.

[C-dub]

Unless the employee handbook has the precise 30.06 language in English and Spanish or you have been verbally notified you could not be prosecuted. However, you could still lose your job. I'm in the same situation. Sorry.

[srothstein]

You can legally leave a gun in your car but you could be fired for violating company policy if you do.

As of right now, there is no law stopping employers from banning guns ins cars in their parking lots and taking job actions against someone for violating the rule.

EDIT:

C-dub is correct and I did not consider the possibility of the language in the employee handbook.

[C-dub]

What is even worse for me is that my company does not post any other signs prohibiting non-employees from carrying on the property.
Oh well, at least there could be someone there to protect us.

[Blinking Dog]

C-dub, I hadn't considered previously that like your workplace, mine too has employee handbook language saying if I have a gun while at work I can be fired, yet no "no guns" signs on the doors to prohibit visitors from carrying (not that I'd want there to be). Frustrating situation to be sure. Anyone here want to visit me at work on a daily basis???

[C-dub]

Anyone here want to visit me at work on a daily basis???

Good one. What's for lunch today?

[Bart]

How often do they search cars? If it's not often I would keep a gun in my car and not allow a search if the one in a million event happened.

[CWOOD]

Unless the employee handbook has the precise 30.06 language in English and Spanish or you have been verbally notified you could not be prosecuted. However, you could still lose your job. I'm in the same situation. Sorry.

I agree with the essentials of C-dub's comments.

I do not mean to be a nit-picker, but the law deals with precision of language.

The word 'verbally' is not precise in this context. 'Verbal' refers to the use of language and can include written and oral formats. The better work in this context is "ORALLY".

PC 30.06 (b)makes specific reference to notice being given as "oral or written communication" and then goes on the describe written as a "card or other document" or a "sign".

So, if someone in authority speaks to you and tells you that you cannot cannot carry on company property there is no specific wording required. Violation of this policy has the force of law and you can be arrested as well as fired.

However if someone has you read a card or other document, like an employee handbook, and if it does non have the specific 30.05 wording, you can be fired but not arrested. If it has the 30.06 wording, you can be fired AND arrested. Obviously it they have the properly composed sign in place you can be fired and arrested.

Again, I do not mean to be picky, but there is a difference which can be important.

[bkjunk]

It could be worse, you could work where I work. Our policy states no guns on or off the clock at any property owned or leased by them. Problem is they are a major retailer and property holder in most of Central and South Texas. So if I follow the policy, my wife can carry when we go shopping at certain locations, but I cant.

I was really counting on the Parking Lot bill, but that didn't quite work out last summer.

[C-dub]

Unless the employee handbook has the precise 30.06 language in English and Spanish or you have been verbally notified you could not be prosecuted. However, you could still lose your job. I'm in the same situation. Sorry.

I agree with the essentials of C-dub's comments.

I do not mean to be a nit-picker, but the law deals with precision of language.

The word 'verbally' is not precise in this context. 'Verbal' refers to the use of language and can include written and oral formats. The better work in this context is "ORALLY".

PC 30.06 (b)makes specific reference to notice being given as "oral or written communication" and then goes on the describe written as a "card or other document" or a "sign".

So, if someone in authority speaks to you and tells you that you cannot cannot carry on company property there is no specific wording required. Violation of this policy has the force of law and you can be arrested as well as fired.

However if someone has you read a card or other document, like an employee handbook, and if it does non have the specific 30.05 wording, you can be fired but not arrested. If it has the 30.06 wording, you can be fired AND arrested. Obviously it they have the properly composed sign in place you can be fired and arrested.

Again, I do not mean to be picky, but there is a difference which can be important.

What? Did you just say that all a verbal notice has to be is someone in authority telling you that you cannot carry a gun on the premises or leave one in your vehicle in the parking lot? If that's what you said, then I agree and thought was what I said too.

[CWOOD]

What? Did you just say that all a verbal notice has to be is someone in authority telling you that you cannot carry a gun on the premises or leave one in your vehicle in the parking lot? If that's what you said, then I agree and thought was what I said too.

I am saying that we basically DO agree. However both oral and written notifications are 'verbal'. My point is not do disagree with you, it is just to point out the the required means of notification is not "written or verbal" but is more accurately written(with specific wording and other requirements) or ORAL.

Please don't think I am trying to be anal retentive or to negate your comments. I am simply trying to be precise. The 30.06 notice requires "oral or written communication."

[CDH]

How often do they search cars? If it's not often I would keep a gun in my car and not allow a search if the one in a million event happened.

I have a similar situation. My plan is to refuse the search and call their bluff, especially if (as I expect) they are searching only my car and not the entire parking lot. It's still MY car even if it's on their property. They may be able to fire me over it, but they are treading on very thin ice in doing so IMO. If I allow the search and they DO find what's under my seat, they will have confirmed cause to fire me and I consider the refusal of a search to be the lesser of the evils by far.

[C-dub]

What? Did you just say that all a verbal notice has to be is someone in authority telling you that you cannot carry a gun on the premises or leave one in your vehicle in the parking lot? If that's what you said, then I agree and thought was what I said too.

I am saying that we basically DO agree. However both oral and written notifications are 'verbal'. My point is not do disagree with you, it is just to point out the the required means of notification is not "written or verbal" but is more accurately written(with specific wording and other requirements) or ORAL.

Please do think I am trying to be anal retentive or to negate your comments. I am simply trying to be precise. The 30.06 notice requires "oral or written communication."

I think we agree, but I'm still not sure. Okay, I just looked up oral vs. verbal. I see your point. We do agree.

BTW, thank you for inciting me to learn the difference between oral and verbal. Poor choice of words on my part.

[Dragonfighter]

Are you civil service? I am in a similar situation, but there are specific guidelines within the law. There was one incident wherein a CHL went to his vehicle retrieved a weapon and held an actor (not a thespian) at bay. The agency then started to make moves to discharge and or discipline the person. Their attorney wisely advised them that since under their civil service rules, there were people who had committed criminal acts, specifically alcohol and drug related offenses, to continue employment with rehabilitation etc., they would be open to HUGE liability if they terminated one who was otherwise within the law, regardless of the regulation. They dropped the issue. Again this was a civil service (local government = no 30.06) situation and your results may vary in the private sector.

My experience has shown that even in secure positions where entering the premise constitutes consent to search will not be an issue without provocation. I am also in agreement that no one is going to search my vehicle without a warrant, unless by force...then I am retired with a home in Florida

[CWOOD]

C-dub, folks like you are part of the reason why it is so enjoyable to participate in this forum.

Dealing with smart, nice people is always such a pleasure.

Isn't it a shame more of the world cannot work like that?

Merry Christmas