TexasCHLforum.com

Well, we have what to do if we have an "active shooter" incident. We either (calmly) leave the building, or, if we can't, then we find something big to hide behind.

Call 9-1-1, and the operator to get our UNARMED security to the scene (I guess to hit them with their walkie-talkies or clipboards) to help manage the scene until police arrive.

We have an inservice on it next week. I'm debating to inform them what I have learned here. I am afraid compliant 30.06 signs will be put up. But, I'll wait and see if we get something in writing to acknowledge that we won't be having a weapon with us.

Jasonw560 wrote:I am afraid compliant 30.06 signs will be put up.

if that happens, remind them that it ONLY keeps Law Abiding Citizens from carrying there, and TELLS the bad guys that they came come in as no one can defend themselves

Of course do NOT tell them any of this before you see a compliant sign, and also remember, if they give you a 'verbal', You cannot carry a gun here (even if you are in an audience and all of you are told at one time), its still valid notification, and they can also rescind that also

Yeah, I know. I just hope they don't know all of that. They probably think the gunbuster sign is good enough notice.

Have you informed them that by installing that sign they are usurping your authority to defend yourself and if they fail to do that as you are a CHL holder your Significant Other will sue them.

MeMelYup wrote:Have you informed them that by installing that sign they are usurping your authority to defend yourself and if they fail to do that as you are a CHL holder your Significant Other will sue them.

Waste of time. They don't care about your rights, and employment is at will. Worse yet, it marks you as the trouble maker they think they'll need to pay special attention to, and it will be noted in your personnel file that you're a "disgruntled" employee. When it comes time to fire you, they'll already have their case built.

Your answer assumes that your sovereignty in their workplace exceeds their sovereignty in their workplace. Threatening your employer with a lawsuit over an event that hasn't happened yet is going to put you on the fast-track to the unemployment line.

That's just singularly bad advice...even though the employer is being unreasonable in their gun policy.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Have you informed them that by installing that sign they are usurping your authority to defend yourself and if they fail to do that as you are a CHL holder your Significant Other will sue them.

Waste of time. They don't care about your rights, and employment is at will. Worse yet, it marks you as the trouble maker they think they'll need to pay special attention to, and it will be noted in your personnel file that you're a "disgruntled" employee. When it comes time to fire you, they'll already have their case built.

Your answer assumes that your sovereignty in their workplace exceeds their sovereignty in their workplace. Threatening your employer with a lawsuit over an event that hasn't happened yet is going to put you on the fast-track to the unemployment line.

That's just singularly bad advice...even though the employer is being unreasonable in their gun policy.

What has happened to me, TAM? Once again I generally agree with you. But in this case I have to go a little bit further, only because I continue to find people who believe what they see here, even when it is absolutely wrong, and can result in bad things happening.

The lawsuit suggested by the member you quote, as well as his/her broad unlimited statement that one in that situation has "authority to defend yourself [with a handgun]" could only lead to another court case harmful to our mutual cause going onto the books. I am sure that statement was made in jest, but does a brand new member know that? Sometimes just a smiley can change an incorrect statement into a joke for those less experienced. Even better would be advice that one who does this should be prepared to be a Mr. Heller or a Mr. McDonald and have the resources to back up his/her principle.

Elmo

b322da wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:That's just singularly bad advice...even though the employer is being unreasonable in their gun policy.

What has happened to me, TAM? Once again I generally agree with you.

Elmo

We have to stop meeting like this. My wife is starting to get suspicious.