TexasCHLforum.com

I made the assumption that my company banned carrying at work, so I did not even look through the employee handbook because I assumed I would be prohibited. I found it today, and wanted input on what I found:

> Possessing weapons on company presises, in company vehicles or while on company business, except and only to the extent that you are entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law and/or authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer. Weapons include but are not limited to, firearms and dangerous or deadly weapons, including explosive devices,, stun gun or any other item a reasonable person might consider a dangerous weapon.

Am I reading this right? I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if "entitled" = "licensed"? The "and/or" would lead me to believe that "licensed" would make it not necessary to get writen authorization by the "cheif security officer"

Am I off base here, or is this saying I can carry at work?

SecedeTX wrote:I made the assumption that my company banned carrying at work, so I did not even look through the employee handbook because I assumed I would be prohibited. I found it today, and wanted input on what I found:

> Possessing weapons on company presises, in company vehicles or while on company business, except and only to the extent that you are entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law and/or authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer. Weapons include but are not limited to, firearms and dangerous or deadly weapons, including explosive devices,, stun gun or any other item a reasonable person might consider a dangerous weapon.

Am I reading this right? I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if "entitled" = "licensed"? The "and/or" would lead me to believe that "licensed" would make it not necessary to get writen authorization by the "cheif security officer"

Am I off base here, or is this saying I can carry at work?

You can carry IF you have a letter in writting from the CSO. The and/or has to be met.

I'm no lawyer, and I would ask to be sure.

But

"entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law"

Suggest to me that you would be allowed to do so. Because licensing for concealed carry is applicable state law.

Best of luck

Ambiguous?

Yes, the "and/or" is what would make me take pause.

SecedeTX wrote: > Possessing weapons on company presises, in company vehicles or while on company business, except and only to the extent that you are entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law and/or authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer. Weapons include but are not limited to, firearms and dangerous or deadly weapons, including explosive devices,, stun gun or any other item a reasonable person might consider a dangerous weapon.

This-to me-would include almost anyone except those that have had their 2A rights stripped.

It doesn't meet the 30.06 requirement for Notice but an employer can generally terminate employment at will in Texas. So can an employee.

Do you work for a company with offices in multiple states? Some companies have started putting language like this in their manuals to allow for states like Florida and Oklahoma that have passed employer parking lot bills.

hirundo82 wrote:Do you work for a company with offices in multiple states? Some companies have started putting language like this in their manuals to allow for states like Florida and Oklahoma that have passed employer parking lot bills.

I work for a corporation with locations in many states.

SecedeTX wrote: > Possessing weapons on company premises, in company vehicles or while on company business is prohibited, except and only to the extent that you are entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law and/or authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer. Weapons include but are not limited to, firearms and dangerous or deadly weapons, including explosive devices,, stun gun or any other item a reasonable person might consider a dangerous weapon.

There's not any "what if" in your original paragraph...
For example, without adding "is prohibited" (in red above) the statement makes no sense.

That said.... IMO a TX CHL holder is "entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law "

If my employer gave this to me, I read this as acceptable for a CHL holder (TX or reciprocal state license) to carry.

I am NOT a lawyer... I don't even pretend to be one on TV. You would be foolish to take this as legal advice
I suggest that you consult an attorney and bring them a copy of the handbook to make sure they have the complete language.

I would interpret that to mean that if you are legal to carry a weapon, the company is OK with it.

The only way to clarify that for sure is to ask a supervisor or HR head.
Of course, doing that puts you on notice and may cost you your job, or at least your right to carry.

But you've already figured that out. I think you were hoping for an answer to the effect that "..that is standard legal terminology that says you have to be a CHL to carry in our workplace". I don't think that will be forthcoming.

My company has similar language. I'm secure enough in my job that I don't think it would ever be a problem beyond "Please don't bring a gun to work again". And I'd seriously consider walking away - after 34 years.

In my mind, Keith has this one right. There is no reason for the AND portion of the and/or unless it was to compel the employee to get permission. In other words, according to the wording, you have to have permission from the CSO in order to carry a firearm, licensed or not. Consider the the two phrases:

"...entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law AND authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer."

"...entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law OR authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer."

Either way it is stated requires CSO permission, IMO.

--NEB

I am under the impress that "and/or" means either "and" or "or". In which case only one of these statements needs to be met:

NEB wrote:"...entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law AND authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer."

"...entitled to possess such a weapon under applicable state or federal law OR authorized in writing by the Chief Security Officer."

If I am wrong, please correct me in the meaning of "and/or". Thanks.

Thomas wrote:I am under the impress that "and/or" means either "and" or "or". In which case only one of these statements needs to be met

That's how I would read it... but.. IANAL

Amazing how a little preposition can either save you or send you to jail... eh?

?

I read it as you can legally own and carry a particular weapon you are good to carry. If yo are only legally able to own said weapon then the CSO MAY authorize you to have it on company premises.

Thomas, that's the way I see it. Only one of the statements has to be met. However, read both statements and you will see that in either condition, the CSO has to give written permission. Of course, I am the farthest thing from a lawyer....

--NEB