TexasCHLforum.com

I have a situation going on at work I was hoping to get some advice on from you guys and gals. Given that its a new year our company updated its company handbook which now includes the dreaded wording of no weapons ect. I have now efectively been given notice that I can no longer carry at work once I signed the new handbook. Knowing that the owner is a FFL dealer and an CHL holder I stopped by to see if I could get some clarification on why the new rules. I of course received the standard boiler plate liability/insurance thing, but was then told that concealed means concealed and that they will not be enforcing the policy.

So my question is would you carry? I am under the impression the company says no since its in the handbook.

You've been given effective notice. If push came to shove, you would have to prove that you were given a verbal OK after you were given a written 'no'. I would not carry.

However, if you could get him to provide you with a written letter exempting you from it, dated after the date of the employee handbook, that might suffice.

I'll let the legal experts weigh in on that now...

Vol Texan wrote:You've been given effective notice. If push came to shove, you would have to prove that you were given a verbal OK after you were given a written 'no'. I would not carry.

However, if you could get him to provide you with a written letter exempting you from it, dated after the date of the employee handbook, that might suffice.

I'll let the legal experts weigh in on that now...

I agree with Vol... If he gave you a verbal ok, I'd politely ask him to sign a letter.
I'd have the letter written out beforehand so all he needs to do is sign it.

Something very simple... Names, dates and a few sentences max.

Hey Jim,
Thanks for the verbal ok to carry at work. I'd really appreciate it if you could make it a bit more formal than a verbal ok. I'd hate to get in any trouble with the law. Could I ask you to sign a short note that confirms our previous discussion? Thanks.!

Date:

Dear Mr. Ipconfig,
This letter authorizes you to carry a concealed handgun on company premises at your discretion, until revoked in writing. This authorization is conditional on your maintaining a current, valid Texas CHL.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXX
Owner
Name of Company

Unless the wording in the handbook is the 30.06 language, you may still legally carry at work but may get fired if found out. Assuming, of course, that your boss didn't personally TELL you "no firearms at work". Verbal notification doesn't have to be in 30.06 language, but written does.

Personally, as long as my boss didn't actually tell me "no firearms at work" or "no weapons at work", etc, I would carry anyway. Fortunately, since I am the boss, I get to make those decisions.

RottenApple wrote:Unless the wording in the handbook is the 30.06 language, you may still legally carry at work but may get fired if found out. Assuming, of course, that your boss didn't personally TELL you "no firearms at work". Verbal notification doesn't have to be in 30.06 language, but written does.

Personally, as long as my boss didn't actually tell me "no firearms at work" or "no weapons at work", etc, I would carry anyway. Fortunately, since I am the boss, I get to make those decisions.

The handbook is the standard all Guns, knives, ect are banned. There is no 30.06 language at all in the handbook.


I will try and see if he is ok with the signing a letter allowing me to carry.

While getting him to sign a letter, or note, or some written acknowledgement is best by far, even sending an e-mail with a delivery receipt, or a paper note acknowledging the conversation would suffice in a pinch, better than nothing.

Dear Fred: I appreciated the chat we had the other day about the new weapons policy and am grateful for you telling me to ignore it as I am a CHL holder. Best, Joe

I wonder about the insurance explanation. I have often concluded that most of these anti gun policies are driven by insurance, but never had anyone admit it. When asked, agents and carriers deny that.

JALLEN wrote:While getting him to sign a letter, or note, or some written acknowledgement is best by far, even sending an e-mail with a delivery receipt, or a paper note acknowledging the conversation would suffice in a pinch, better than nothing.

Dear Fred: I appreciated the chat we had the other day about the new weapons policy and am grateful for you telling me to ignore it as I am a CHL holder. Best, Joe

I wonder about the insurance explanation. I have often concluded that most of these anti gun policies are driven by insurance, but never had anyone admit it. When asked, agents and carriers deny that.

I specifically told by the owner that is was liability and insurance driving the change.

I wonder what it would do to their insurance rates if a CHL employee was hurt or injured on the job in a situation where a weapon could have been useful but was prohibited and the employer was sued by the family of the employee.

He can say whatever he wants. Push come to shove you signed an employee handbook stating you know you cannot carry at work. What he said is hearsay, could luck with that in court.

My decision would depend on a few things. It is not illegal to carry there with a CHL.

How big is the company? Can anybody else fire you besides the owner? If no, I'd carry without hesitation.

Ipconfig wrote:

I specifically told by the owner that is was liability and insurance driving the change.

Yes, that is what they say, but the agents and carriers say not. I'd love to read the policies sometime to see what they say. There is often a wide divergence in policy interpretation between the sales department and the claims department.

JALLEN wrote:

Ipconfig wrote:

I specifically told by the owner that is was liability and insurance driving the change.

Yes, that is what they say, but the agents and carriers say not. I'd love to read the policies sometime to see what they say. There is often a wide divergence in policy interpretation between the sales department and the claims department.

As someone who has a say so in purchasing for the company I work for as well as my wifes business, I have looked through both policies (2 different companies) and have seen nothing about weapons. Now, my company has a written policy that states weapons of any kind not allowed in the building or in company owned vehicles without written permission. When I was hired over 5 years ago, I made it a condition of my employement that I got that written permission. There is a copy in my personel file and I have a copy as well.

signed book or not you haven't been given notice. Nowhere in the law does it state that any wording in a handbook goes whether you signed for the handbook or not. It HAS to follow the 30.06 wording specifically or it doesn't apply to carry under your CHL. You can get fired but you wouldn't have done anything illegal....

As with all of the questions that come up regarding employee handbooks prohibiting concealed carry, nobody is arguing about the LEGALITY of being able to carry at work. Unless posted as 30.06 or unless it's a 51% business, a criminal tresspass charge cannot be made to stick. However a direct violation of company policy can be grounds for immediate dismissal. However the OP has posed an interesting quesion in that the employer has a published policy, but seems to be open to allowing exceptions. Ipconfig, cover your 6 & get the exception in writing or try to get your boss to change the policy.

grim-bob wrote:signed book or not you haven't been given notice. Nowhere in the law does it state that any wording in a handbook goes whether you signed for the handbook or not. It HAS to follow the 30.06 wording specifically or it doesn't apply to carry under your CHL. You can get fired but you wouldn't have done anything illegal....

Sounds to me like the boss knows the wording has to be 30.06 to be legally enforceable, and he's trying to tell you that.

My company has similar verbage, and I have carried at work for many years.
I'm pretty sure the key people know it