Help me interpret my employer's firearms policy

[Ark03]

Can you help me interpret my employer's firearms policy? I thought I had a pretty good understanding that it meant no firearms for anyone (CHL holders included), unless authorized in writing, or where law trumps the policy (ie parking lot). However, I was discussing this with a buddy of mine who is in HR and who was on the committee that wrote the policy, and he said the intent of the policy was to allow CHL holders to carry firearms at work. I don't read it that way. My friend is not the HR manager, but he is the only one I'd trust on this committee so I'm not comfortable asking anyone else.

What do you guys think, and how could it be interpreted if something were to happen?

*Note, I redacted the name of my employer and replaced it with "xxx."

Possession of Firearms or Other Weapons

Employees are not permitted to carry or possess firearms, knives, or other weapons while on the premises of any xxx facility, in xxx buildings, in vehicles parked on xxx property, or on any other xxx property. In addition, the carrying or possessing of personal firearms at xxx activities, unless specifically authorized by law or by the xxx, is also prohibited. This prohibition also applies to employees who are licensed to carry weapons, except where such prohibition has been specifically precluded under the state law. This prohibition does not apply to employees who have obtained prior written authorization to do so. Any employee disregarding or violating this policy will be subject to immediate termination.

Thanks in advance!!

[fickman]

Texas law does not preempt your employee from telling you not to carry, except in the parking lot (with exceptions). That said, it looks like you cannot carry according to the corporate policy.

You can carry without fear of criminal charges, but you would be in violation of policy and could be fired if they found out. That's a cost/benefit analysis you'll have to make.

Depending on the company (how "corporate" is it?), you might consider submitting a written request for written permission. . . they will most likely deny it. I say to submit it in writing so that - if they deny it - the rejection would hopefully also be written. If it's written, it's not legally binding on you unless they use 30.06 language. If somebody stops by your desk (or calls a meeting) and tells you not to carry, you've just received effective notice and you would be guilty of trespassing if you carried after that.

[Ark03]

Texas law does not preempt your employee from telling you not to carry, except in the parking lot (with exceptions). That said, it looks like you cannot carry according to the corporate policy.

That's about what I thought. Thanks to both of you for taking a look at this. Three years ago (before I had my CHL), I would have been fine with writing a letter to our HR director. He's long gone, and with today's staff I'm a lot less comfortable being on that radar.

I won't say anything else on here to further incriminate myself. Plausible deniability for whatever I choose to do ;)

[tbrown]

I agree with you. "This prohibition also applies to employees who are licensed to carry weapons" looks very clear.

[Jumping Frog]

Whenever this question comes up it is useful to keep in my there is a CLEAR difference between what is LEGAL and what is COMPANY POLICY.

What you have written does not meet the LEGAL requirements for effective notice in Texas. That means if you carry is it not a CRIME.

However, it is clearly against COMPANY POLICY. This means you could be fired.

It is up to you to decide for yourself if your job is worth giving up the mean to protect yourself, or if you think your concealment is effective enough to carry anyway.

[CainA]

I have to agree with everyone else.

And I think this part sounds strange:

"... except where such prohibition has been specifically precluded under the state law."

I'm trying to think of a situation where state law would void this [company]policy.

[RottenApple]

I have to agree with everyone else.

And I think this part sounds strange:

"... except where such prohibition has been specifically precluded under the state law."

I'm trying to think of a situation where state law would void this [company]policy.

Parking lot.

[CainA]

I guess I should have clarified...on their property other than the parking lot as in Inside their own facility.

[Keith B]

I guess I should have clarified...on their property other than the parking lot as in Inside their own facility.

My companies policy is very similar in wording. The only 'preclusion' in state law is the parking lot law. Other than that, they prohibit possession unless you have written permission from the appropriate level in your company.

[bdickens]

The statement is a bunch of self-contradictory gobbledygook.