TexasCHLforum.com

I don't supposed there is any push to put penalties on employers that might fire a CHL for having a handgun in a locked vehicle? Right now you're more or less not going to be charged with trespass or 30.06 violation. It is a great start but.......

IANAL but if my company put that down as reason for termination I'd never have to work again.

goose wrote:I don't supposed there is any push to put penalties on employers that might fire a CHL for having a handgun in a locked vehicle?

Help me out here. In what way are the current civil remedies insufficient?

goose wrote:I don't supposed there is any push to put penalties on employers that might fire a CHL for having a handgun in a locked vehicle? Right now you're more or less not going to be charged with trespass or 30.06 violation. It is a great start but.......

That would fall prey to the law of "unintended consequences". I would not support such a law.

There are huge economic and social advantages to all members of society when employers retain the flexibility to add/subtract jobs at will. The "friction" imposed by such well-meaning laws is one reason the structural unemployment in Europe has been about 10% higher than the US for decades.

Best way to retain your job is to be exceptionally valuable to your employer in the work you do.

goose wrote:I don't supposed there is any push to put penalties on employers that might fire a CHL for having a handgun in a locked vehicle? Right now you're more or less not going to be charged with trespass or 30.06 violation. It is a great start but.......

Yes, I mentioned several options during my testimony in the interim study past year.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

goose wrote:I don't supposed there is any push to put penalties on employers that might fire a CHL for having a handgun in a locked vehicle? Right now you're more or less not going to be charged with trespass or 30.06 violation. It is a great start but.......

Yes, I mentioned several options during my testimony in the interim study past year.

Excellent news. Thank you Mr. Cotton!

Jumping Frog wrote:

goose wrote:I don't supposed there is any push to put penalties on employers that might fire a CHL for having a handgun in a locked vehicle? Right now you're more or less not going to be charged with trespass or 30.06 violation. It is a great start but.......

That would fall prey to the law of "unintended consequences". I would not support such a law.

There are huge economic and social advantages to all members of society when employers retain the flexibility to add/subtract jobs at will. The "friction" imposed by such well-meaning laws is one reason the structural unemployment in Europe has been about 10% higher than the US for decades.

Best way to retain your job is to be exceptionally valuable to your employer in the work you do.

No corporation of any size is going to see any of it's normal workforce as exceptionally valuable. The workforce is an asset to be managed. Then add in a security exec and/or a CEO that has their own agenda about firearms. My managers appear to love me (literally and figuratively as we've been on the same team almost two decades), both are pro 2A. Neither would have one bit of sway, and probably not one bit of say, with the higher ups that would both make the call and know nothing about me. I'm just data on a piece of paper at that point.

It is very possible for someone to anonymously turn a car tag into security and suggest any number of reasons for them to search a vehicle. Having them find nothing but lawful items and being dismissed for it would not be in my best interest.

And yes, I can hear the "You didn't want to work for them commies anyway" crowd. That just isn't true for me. I work with an awesome team of friends. I feel like I get benefits that reward me and my family. What I don't want is to get fired for lawful, responsible behaviors.

apostate wrote:

goose wrote:I don't supposed there is any push to put penalties on employers that might fire a CHL for having a handgun in a locked vehicle?

Help me out here. In what way are the current civil remedies insufficient?

I don't know of any civil remedies. I/We have to go find other work as I read it.

goose wrote:
No corporation of any size is going to see any of it's normal workforce as exceptionally valuable. The workforce is an asset to be managed.

Ain't that the truth. The workforce as a whole is valuable, but individually, they are dispensable. Risk management drives many decisions - whatever will cost the company the least amt of money is the way they go. Many will risk employee termination lawsuits later to avoid cost now.

goose wrote:

apostate wrote:

goose wrote:I don't supposed there is any push to put penalties on employers that might fire a CHL for having a handgun in a locked vehicle?

Help me out here. In what way are the current civil remedies insufficient?

I don't know of any civil remedies. I/We have to go find other work as I read it.

If a company fired you in violation of the parking lot law, you would have the civil remedy of a law suit against them for wrongful discharge. They may be ordered to hire you back and give you back pay and seniority. They could also be ordered to pay a penalty.

In truth, this may take quite some time and you would be best served by finding a different job anyway. But it is enough of a penalty that most companies will be deterred from the action.

srothstein wrote:

goose wrote:

apostate wrote:

goose wrote:I don't supposed there is any push to put penalties on employers that might fire a CHL for having a handgun in a locked vehicle?

Help me out here. In what way are the current civil remedies insufficient?

I don't know of any civil remedies. I/We have to go find other work as I read it.

If a company fired you in violation of the parking lot law, you would have the civil remedy of a law suit against them for wrongful discharge. They may be ordered to hire you back and give you back pay and seniority. They could also be ordered to pay a penalty.

In truth, this may take quite some time and you would be best served by finding a different job anyway. But it is enough of a penalty that most companies will be deterred from the action.

For the record I would hope that you're correct that most companies won't go there. I also readily admit to not being an expert. And I agree that the ability to sue may be there, but without any teeth it doesn't feel very powerful. Especially without any precedence. I would like a "specific remedy" mentioned in the quote below. As I read the EEOC websites and as I read the Attorney General's opinion (partial quote below) on the matter it sounds to me that in our at-will state, unless there was some form of discrimination or breech of contract, you're out of luck. While I might agree that it is, I have not read that a disregard for the 2A or 52.061 is a form of discrimination. I have not found precedence being set in TX.

"No statute of which we are aware provides a specific remedy for employees whose employers violate section 52.061. And the Legislature has not authorized this office or any other state agency to take corrective action. Despite the lack of a statutory remedy, an aggrieved employee may, depending on the circumstances, have the ability to sue an offending employer under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act."
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op ... ga0972.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;