Leaving gun in car at work

[kfriddile]

I spent almost 30 years at an un-named helicopter plant in Hurst/Ft. Worth, TX that didn't in later years allow guns on company property, parking lots, employee's cars, etc.

This Company completely ignored thieves on the parking lots stealing tires, gasoline, whatever.....I totally ignored their rules about guns in my vehicle. End of story.

I worked there for awhile too

 

[JKTex]

my employer is then 100% liable for my safety in the event that anything happen that I could have reasonably stopped by having my legally concealed firearm in my possession?

So you're "lawyer" and CHL Instructor also said that if you "were" allowed to carry at work, that the employer would be off the hook 100% if soeone walked in and shot you? Or that "if" you were not prohibited from having a gun in your car in their parking lot and you were shot walking to or from your car, the employer would be 100% off the hook?

You have to think about what the liability is, and what it means in this case. You get shot, is your employer going to be charged with a criminal offense? Or will their insurance company be working on a settlement to your survivors ONLY when you were not allowed to carry?

I'm sticking to the idea that we need to think for ourselves and use reasonable judgment when listening to others that we want to call "experts".

Liability means almost nothing.

 

[biglucky]

So you're "lawyer" and CHL Instructor also said that if you "were" allowed to carry at work, that the employer would be off the hook 100% if soeone walked in and shot you? Or that "if" you were not prohibited from having a gun in your car in their parking lot and you were shot walking to or from your car, the employer would be 100% off the hook?

You have to think about what the liability is, and what it means in this case. You get shot, is your employer going to be charged with a criminal offense? Or will their insurance company be working on a settlement to your survivors ONLY when you were not allowed to carry?

I'm sticking to the idea that we need to think for ourselves and use reasonable judgment when listening to others that we want to call "experts".

Liability means almost nothing.

No, that is not at all what I meant. What I have been told is that if my employer doesn't allow me to keep my firearm in my vehicle and on the way home I get carjacked or am at the corner store and get shot during a robbery my employer is liable because of the fact that they stripped me of the ability to protect myself. This of course is a matter of financial liability, not criminal.

 

[txinvestigator]

No, that is not at all what I meant. What I have been told is that if my employer doesn't allow me to keep my firearm in my vehicle and on the way home I get carjacked or am at the corner store and get shot during a robbery my employer is liable because of the fact that they stripped me of the ability to protect myself. This of course is a matter of financial liability, not criminal.

Whoever told you that knows nothing about our legal system. IF there were a suit, a civil court would hear the facts and decide on liability, if any. There is no broad rule that makes your employer liable for anything that happens to you while off of his property.

Its just not true

 

[JKTex]

No, that is not at all what I meant. What I have been told is that if my employer doesn't allow me to keep my firearm in my vehicle and on the way home I get carjacked or am at the corner store and get shot during a robbery my employer is liable because of the fact that they stripped me of the ability to protect myself. This of course is a matter of financial liability, not criminal.

Ok, you didn't specify on the way home and used the term phrase including carry concealed firearm, referred to buildings etc. which made it sound in general.

Anyway, I think txinvestigator responded well to that. It goes to being careful who you listen too. A CHL instructor isn't the person to take legal advise from. And I'd be really careful taking any other advise from the Attorney that told you that. Any Attorney that would offer advise that leaves you with the idea that you have, is dangerous and irresponsible.

I have a family member that is very a successful Attorney in areas of liability. I guarantee he'd tell your family not to even waste the gas and parking to come to his offices to discuss it, but to seek support of friends and family to work thorugh their loss.

 

[Pawpaw40]

Legislation

Some new legislation has been proposed that would eliminate the problem noted in the OP.

State Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy) has introduced Senate Bill 730, NRA-backed legislation allowing employees to store legally-owned firearms in their private motor vehicles while parked at work. Under Texas law, if you are legally eligible to possess firearms, you may lawfully transport them in motor vehicles. Some Texans do so for self-defense during their commutes; others make routine trips to the deer lease or local gun club before or after work. But a large number of corporations with operations in Texas have adopted "No Firearms" policies that extend beyond the physical workplace to include parking areas, many of which are unsecure or even unsafe.

Everyone on this site should contact their State legislative representatives to support this bill.

 

[SC-Texas]

No, that is not at all what I meant. What I have been told is that if my employer doesn't allow me to keep my firearm in my vehicle and on the way home I get carjacked or am at the corner store and get shot during a robbery my employer is liable because of the fact that they stripped me of the ability to protect myself. This of course is a matter of financial liability, not criminal.

This is simply incorrect. It is incorrect on so many levels that I am not going to even begin to explain how and why it is incorrect.

It is safe to say that in no way would your employer be liable under tExas law for a carjacking that occurred off premises under any circumstances.

It is also safe to say that under most circumstances, your employer wouldn't be liable for a carjacking in its parkinglot.

It is further safe to say that under most circumstances, your lawyer would probably not be liable for a crazy employee shooting the place up,

 

[JKTex]

Some new legislation has been proposed that would eliminate the problem noted in the OP.

State Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy) has introduced Senate Bill 730, NRA-backed legislation allowing employees to store legally-owned firearms in their private motor vehicles while parked at work. Under Texas law, if you are legally eligible to possess firearms, you may lawfully transport them in motor vehicles. Some Texans do so for self-defense during their commutes; others make routine trips to the deer lease or local gun club before or after work. But a large number of corporations with operations in Texas have adopted "No Firearms" policies that extend beyond the physical workplace to include parking areas, many of which are unsecure or even unsafe.

Everyone on this site should contact their State legislative representatives to support this bill.

Yes, there are a few threads discussing this as well. Member "Charles Cotton" has posted and commented on it also. I believe the thought is that it will go this session as last session the only foreseen reason it did not that time ran out.

But that doesn't mean some of the goofy conversation that's taken place so far can't continue in this thread for our amusement.

 

[rayj8524]

our rights

While I read these various posts, with all of their "what ifs", I am reminded of something I read a while back in another forum, and these words have stuck in my mind ever since; in regards to our desire, and reasons, to carry, we should remember these words: that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

We need to stand for what we believe that is right and decide beforehand, just how far we want to carry this. IMHO, if your employer says "don't bring firearms onto his property" and you feel you need to have your weapon for the very reason you decided to carry, then by all means do what you need to. Because of some stupid policy you could end up dead or severly injured, what good are you to your family? Just remember, from a much higher Authority, we have the right, the unalienable right, to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Hey, I understand its reasonably easy to become a Walmart greeter.

 

[DustinO]

whew, i consider myself very lucky that my employer has no ill-will to gun carry. i have probably seen more guns in and out of this office than all the others i have ever worked in combined. in fact, i know i have. i carry mine in to work with me everyday and stick it in my desk drawer. we are a pretty close-knit group however. i think it ridiculous to vilify or demoralize people who lawfully carry for their own, or their family's protection. for god sakes, who do the anti-gunners want us to rely on, the government or the police to protect us from all harm?!?? c'mon. the government couldnt even be bothered to send immediate help when one of its states was flooded and rampaged by a terrible storm not all that long ago, much less protect each individual from all the sociopaths our 'free' society turns out.

 

[Texas1911]

I approve of the usage of Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

 

[DustinO]

I approve of the usage of Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

heh, thanks. i take it you watch?

 

[thorkyl]

30.06 only applies to criminal trespass and then only if it is properly posted.
Employers can only fire you if you violate the no gun rule, thus it is a civil matter and not a legal matter.

Now if you do not have a CHL then I do not know if it is a legal or civil matter.

Now here is the bill in the Texas legislature now.

HB 1301
Texas Legislature Online - 81(R) History for HB 1301
HB 1301 Text
81(R) HB 1301 - Introduced version - Bill Text

and

SB 730
Texas Legislature Online - 81(R) History for SB 730
SB 730 text
81(R) SB 730 - Introduced version - Bill Text

 

[arvetus]

Yes, 30.06 rule MUST be posted something to the effect of "Pursuant to 30.06 of bla bla bla..." and in both English and Spanish in 1" high letters. Anything else, doesn't count.

Employers CAN fire if as an employee you enter the building carrying, even though you are licensed and all they need to do so is a simple "no handgun" sign (30.06 or not), or a policy in the employee handbook. John Q. Public that can carry if the proper licensure is held, even though a simple "no-handgun" sign may be posted, as long as the 30.06 is not. This is how I understand the rule.

However, if you work somewhere, but are not an employee, but work in the same building (such as if a company outsources a department another company), I am not sure how that would go legally. My feeling would be that you could still carry as long as 30.06 is not posted... but I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure lawyers on either side could argue either way.

 

[JKTex]

Yes, 30.06 rule MUST be posted something to the effect of "Pursuant to 30.06 of bla bla bla..." and in both English and Spanish in 1" high letters. Anything else, doesn't count.

Employers CAN fire if as an employee you enter the building carrying, even though you are licensed and all they need to do so is a simple "no handgun" sign (30.06 or not), or a policy in the employee handbook. John Q. Public that can carry if the proper licensure is held, even though a simple "no-handgun" sign may be posted, as long as the 30.06 is not. This is how I understand the rule.

However, if you work somewhere, but are not an employee, but work in the same building (such as if a company outsources a department another company), I am not sure how that would go legally. My feeling would be that you could still carry as long as 30.06 is not posted... but I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure lawyers on either side could argue either way.

If you'll go back and read the thread first, you'll see where a lot of what you posted is not correct.

This is the problem with threads lie this, they get so long that the subject, although covered well, get's lost because no one will read all 75+ pages and see that it's been covered and done.

There ought to be a size or time limit on threads then lock the puppies down before they become a "runaway".

 

[arvetus]

If you'll go back and read the thread first, you'll see where a lot of what you posted is not correct.

This is the problem with threads lie this, they get so long that the subject, although covered well, get's lost because no one will read all 75+ pages and see that it's been covered and done.

There ought to be a size or time limit on threads then lock the puppies down before they become a "runaway".

I had posted in a thread similar to this about "where can you carry" and was critiqued and told to go back to what I was taught in the class. I hadn't taken my class then, but I have since, and I'm just going off of what was covered in the class, because this was covered at length, and I also brought it up specifically during the class time to clear any question.

Employers can have an employee policy to prevent carrying on their premises, where premises is defined as the building without having the 30.06 rule. The parking lot legislation that is currently in the state house would rectify being able to carry in a vehicle and parking it in an employee parking lot, and the employer would also have to provide you a place to lock up your firearm in a locker or other facility.

Perhaps different DPS instructors have different interpretations of the law?

However, I do agree that these long, drawn out threads where everybody and their brother has a different interpretation does get ridiculous and confuses new forum members, who often get critiqued for not searching. These long threads get so flipping confusing, it makes one's head hurt just trying to make sense of it all.

Perhaps one who is well versed in Texas law could create a "sticky" in common language (not legalese) of what exactly the 30.06 rule entails and how one can interpret the law based on being an employee or John Q. Public.

Example given, I work in a hospital. I am not an employee of the hospital; the hospital outsources my department to another company. The hospital does not post a 30.06 sign, meaning John Q. Public can carry if properly licensed. There is a simple "No Handgun" sign posted at every entrance, meaning that it is illegal to carry a handgun if you are not licensed (duh). However, if they had a corporate policy prohibiting employees carrying of concealed weapons even if they were licensed, they could enforce it. Whether they could enforce it with me is another question since I am not their employee per say. That's what I'm saying...

I thought I had my question cleared up in another thread, but after going through the class, my instructor said that the EMPLOYER can prohibit the EMPLOYEE from carrying even without a 30.06 sign.

 

[JKTex]

Guess my point was, it's all been covered, and by people that know the law but that gets ignored and the thread keeps going regurgitating the same things over and over. Including the fact that people do get bad information or misunderstand information given in some CHL classes.

You're right, it gets confusing unless you follow and read the entire thing which most won't do because, well, that's would drive a sane person insane.

 

[txinvestigator]

Yes, 30.06 rule MUST be posted something to the effect of "Pursuant to 30.06 of bla bla bla..." and in both English and Spanish in 1" high letters. Anything else, doesn't count.

Employers CAN fire if as an employee you enter the building carrying, even though you are licensed and all they need to do so is a simple "no handgun" sign (30.06 or not), or a policy in the employee handbook. John Q. Public that can carry if the proper licensure is held, even though a simple "no-handgun" sign may be posted, as long as the 30.06 is not. This is how I understand the rule.

However, if you work somewhere, but are not an employee, but work in the same building (such as if a company outsources a department another company), I am not sure how that would go legally. My feeling would be that you could still carry as long as 30.06 is not posted... but I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure lawyers on either side could argue either way.

Re employers and 30.06;

Employers can give 30.06 notice. Any verbal notice is sufficient and violating that subjects the offender to criminal prosecution.

Written notice on a card or other document must have the languange in 30.06, specifically, "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".

It does not have to be in spanish or meet the size, contrast or conspicuous location erquirements. If an employee is given such notice and violates it, he is subject to criminal prosecution.

Of course, a sign posted that meets the requirements above, and is in both English and Spanish in contrasting colors with letters of at least one inch tall subjects the employee to criminal prosecution if violated.

Parking lots, in fact, ALL of the employers property can be off limits. 30.06 does not use the term "premise" but uses the term "property".

 

[txinvestigator]

Example given, I work in a hospital. I am not an employee of the hospital; the hospital outsources my department to another company. The hospital does not post a 30.06 sign, meaning John Q. Public can carry if properly licensed. There is a simple "No Handgun" sign posted at every entrance, meaning that it is illegal to carry a handgun if you are not licensed (duh). However, if they had a corporate policy prohibiting employees carrying of concealed weapons even if they were licensed, they could enforce it. Whether they could enforce it with me is another question since I am not their employee per say. That's what I'm saying...

You are not criminally liable under 30.06, but they can request that your employer not send you back.

I thought I had my question cleared up in another thread, but after going through the class, my instructor said that the EMPLOYER can prohibit the EMPLOYEE from carrying even without a 30.06 sign.

He is right. He can fire you for violating policy, but you cannot be criminally charged unless you were given 30.06 notice. My previous post explains what 30.06 notice is.

 

[jsimmons]

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

This is of particular interest to me since our employee manual says we can't have a handgun on company "premises". The above cited clause implies that I can in fact have a handgun in my locked vehicle in the company parking lot because parking lots are not considered to be "premises".

I think I'll look into this further.