TexasCHLforum.com

just started a new job today and the employee info page reads, 'unauthorized possession of a firearm' is a no no.


i don't want to ask my new boss because i'm not sure how he feels about CHL - haven't had time to feel him out yet.

what's yalls opinion? should i just carry and if made, pull the, 'but... CHL = authorized' defense?

once i get an idea of where he stands on the subject i'll know whether to ask him or not, but until then... *shrug*

Authorized means that the company gave you explicit permission, (i.e. written) to carry. Whatever you claim about it means, you could be fired for no reason.

+1

you guys aren't telling me what i want to hear, darnit.


lol

i was afraid that would be the consensus. thanks for potentially saving my job, guys!!

Ok, I confess, At a previous work site (I was contractor) I carried for months with no one noticing. Note that I was "deep" carrying using a smartcarry holster.
I am sure, the contract would have been terminated in a split sec if I was made, however, my contract was never renewed after the first yr.

If you take your chances and can live with the consequences, go for it. smartcarry was good choice.

Yeah, I think you should not attach the same meaning to "unauthorized possession" that you might to "unlicensed possession". You might just approach your boss and say something like, "I want to clarify something in the handbook to make sure I do not break any rules. I will go with whatever you say". I guess you might run the risk of him being a rabid "anti", but who knows unless you try?

RJ

schufflerbot wrote:just started a new job today . . .
i don't want to ask my new boss

Since it is a new job that I assume you would like to keep, I suggest you don't ask him.

For people working in large businesses who want or need to keep their job with an HR department that is organized enough to actually create an employee manual, I recommend following something I have named as "Tweed's Rule vis-a-vis Employers", after someone who is a 30+ year employee relations executive and knows how corporate America works. It reads as:

Tweed's rules vis-a-vis any employment situation, carefully developed after 30+ years in HR go as follows:

1. ) I do not own a gun, and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

2.) I do not want to own a gun and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

3.) I don't want to talk to anyone who owns a gun, and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

4.) If someone is talking about guns, I shall walk away, and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

5.) My hobbies are very interesting and entertaining, but, I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

6.) The hobbies of my significant other, (if any) and children (if any) are very interesting and entertaining and I shall never talk to my co-workers about guns.

I think anyone reading this will see a trend developing.

This advice is free.

If an ant-gunner gets wind of firearms in the workplace, the most common pattern if for that information to filter back to HR with the expectation that they need to "do something".

Note that I qualified this as large businesses and a job you want to keep. So don't start arguing how you work in a small business with a boss who shoots IDPA with you every weekend, or you feel like you would rather quit and work in a firearms-friendly workplace. Those are obviously different cases.

In my case, I worked for a large company in a previous life where I was not smart enough to instinctively follow Tweed's law. So I discussed gun-related stuff with other gun enthusiasts at work. I did not realize at the time that I was overheard by some real anti-gunner women in the office. One day, they overheard me in an argument with a fellow manager and called the corporate office to complain to HR that they were frightened because I was angry and a gun nut who brought guns into work. It didn't matter that I had never brought a gun into the office, I was still given a "final warning notice".

If a company goes through lay-offs, for example, items like warning notices can mean the difference between you getting let go versus the other guy. When the recession hit in 2008, I was laid off even though my performance was measurably stronger than some peers.

If you decide to ask your boss, I suggest you do it by email. If you ask him in person and he says you cannot have a gun at work, you will have then been notified per 30.06. But if he responds to an email, he will not like use the wording required by 30.06 for written notice.

MasterOfNone wrote:If you decide to ask your boss, I suggest you do it by email. If you ask him in person and he says you cannot have a gun at work, you will have then been notified per 30.06. But if he responds to an email, he will not like use the wording required by 30.06 for written notice.

Deleted.. The above is accurate.

Beiruty wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:If you decide to ask your boss, I suggest you do it by email. If you ask him in person and he says you cannot have a gun at work, you will have then been notified per 30.06. But if he responds to an email, he will not like use the wording required by 30.06 for written notice.

Deleted.. The above is accurate.

No, the size is only for signs. The verbiage requirement is for both:

(3) "Written communication" means:(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Grr you got me with a stealth edit.

thanks, yall. i figured it was a touchy subject... i guess it's even worse than i thought for some places of employment.

it's ok though, i found out yesterday that i can park in the parking garage, so leaving the weapon in the car will be no big deal.

+1 Tweed's rules. If you like your job, if you need the job to buy more guns don't talk guns. Much of today's society has been raised to feel guns are bad, dangerous and anyone interested in guns is a potential danger. NEVER mention guns at work. In the wrong corporate enviroment it can make you a target in an at will hire state.
If you have mentioned guns in the past don't do it again.

kjolly wrote:+1 Tweed's rules. If you like your job, if you need the job to buy more guns don't talk guns. Much of today's society has been raised to feel guns are bad, dangerous and anyone interested in guns is a potential danger. NEVER mention guns at work. In the wrong corporate enviroment it can make you a target in an at will hire state.
If you have mentioned guns in the past don't do it again.

I have to respectfully disagree with this mentality. One of our failures in promoting the expansion of 2a rights is the fact that the gun community has not been promoting the ideas of responsible gun ownership. If the only side that is being voiced is the voice of opposition who has successfully flown the flag of "save the children", then we will not be successfull in our plight to expand the rights of citizens to own and carry. We are allowing ourselves to be painted into a corner where the only gun owners who are visible to the general public are those who have somewhat fanatical (in the public's opinion) views concerning gun ownership and RKBA (OCDO crowd). I can easily point to our failure in the campus carry battle, the side that made emotional arguments won by a landslide in the court of public opinion. That is because the emotional arguments make for great sound bites and and resonate well with people who have not had the facts explained to them in a way that they accept prior to receiving the emotional pleas.

I hate to make this comparison, but we are putting ourselves in the same situation as the gay community was in the '70's. The "as long as we stay in the closet, they will leave us alone" is counterproductive and, quite frankly, cowardly. I believe that it's time for us to engage in CIVIL and INTELLECTUAL conversations about personal ownership of guns and personal responsibility for self defense. The public will not be educated through podcasts and documentaries about firearms because the only people who will watch are the ones who already belive in responsible gun ownership as an individual right. Education, and more importantly winning over to our side, of the masses is better accomplished through casual conversations at the water cooler, at church, in social settings, ect.

Sorry for the thread derail [\rant]

Edited for poor speeling......................I kin speel gud!