Weapons Policy at Work

[ilbob]

in this context "technically" has no legal meaning. he either is or is not head of security. he either is or is not authorized by the company and/or by the state to be armed.

it is like saying "basically" he is head of security. it just does not mean anything specific enough to comment on.

I knew a guy once was "basically" the bouncer at a local bar. he was never paid by the bar owner other then with free drinks. You think his status was not at least irregular?

The problem is that as long as nothing bad happens it probably won't matter any.

But what happens if he has to shoot someone? Is the company going to stand behind him if the only thing in writing says he is not supposed to be armed and there is nothing in writing saying he is chief of security?

What happens after a shooting if it turns out there are legal requirements he has not met that are required of security personnel in TX?

i don't know that there is any requirement that a "head of security" be armed. maybe in TX. But up here, the vast majority of companies do not want armed guards any more. They just are not real common.

 

[mugsie]

I am not a lawyer. I am an old fart. Period. That being said, you're screwed if anything happens. Alive, since you would be able to defend yourself, but in all probability sans a job since the employer will CTA and terminate your employment.

On the other hand, since they posted it's a gun free zone since they are prohibited, nothing will ever happen. Bad guys always respect the laws.

 

[JRH6856]

i don't know that there is any requirement that a "head of security" be armed. maybe in TX. But up here, the vast majority of companies do not want armed guards any more. They just are not real common.

There is no requirement in Texas that a "head of security" or a security guard or officer be armed. But there is a legal requirement that an armed security officer be commissioned as such by the State of Texas.

OCC §1702.161. SECURITY OFFICER COMMISSION REQUIRED.
(a) An individual may not accept employment as a security officer to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the individual's duties unless the individual holds a security officer commission.
(b) An individual employed as a security officer may not knowingly carry a firearm during the course of performing duties as a security officer unless the board has issued a security officer commission to the individual.
(c) A person may not hire or employ an individual as a security officer to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the individual's duties unless the individual holds a security officer commission.​

A written confirmation that he needs to be armed to act as a security officer just places both him and the company in violation.

 

[ilbob]

There is no requirement in Texas that a "head of security" or a security guard or officer be armed. But there is a legal requirement that an armed security officer be commissioned as such by the State of Texas.

OCC §1702.161. SECURITY OFFICER COMMISSION REQUIRED.
(a) An individual may not accept employment as a security officer to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the individual's duties unless the individual holds a security officer commission.
(b) An individual employed as a security officer may not knowingly carry a firearm during the course of performing duties as a security officer unless the board has issued a security officer commission to the individual.
(c) A person may not hire or employ an individual as a security officer to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the individual's duties unless the individual holds a security officer commission.​

A written confirmation that he needs to be armed to act as a security officer just places both him and the company in violation.

are there no exceptions to this general rule? IL has similar rules about armed guards but I think there are also some exceptions. I think one of the exceptions is for those employing a small number of armed guards. I don't know if it is still true but at one time as long as they were working directly for a company you could have either 3 or maybe it was 5 armed guards without any special requirements.

 

[oneounceload]

HR policies these days are more restrictive and eliminate the worker's Constitutional Rights

This does not apply in the private sector for this scenario

 

[BSA1]

The O.P has not provided any more information about the size of his company and why he is carrying at work.

Outsourcing administrative functions such as payroll, accounting, human resources has become common with many companies.

In his companies case the new H.R. policy may be a "generic" statement they use rather than going to the trouble of developing a tailor made policy for each new client.

Being shy and bashful person (NOT!) I would address my concerns directly with upper management in the company. It could well be management has not given the issue any thought.

 

[jonnyc]

"or any other object that could be used to harass, intimidate, injure, or kill
another individual."

I thought this bit rather all-encompassing and potentially problematic. Is there anything that it DOESN'T include???

 

[JRH6856]

are there no exceptions to this general rule? IL has similar rules about armed guards but I think there are also some exceptions. I think one of the exceptions is for those employing a small number of armed guards. I don't know if it is still true but at one time as long as they were working directly for a company you could have either 3 or maybe it was 5 armed guards without any special requirements.

There are no exceptions in the statute. Armed security officers must be commissioned by the state.

A company could allow its employees to be armed, but it can't call them security officers or employ the, primarily for this purpose.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

It doesn't say all weapons are banned, period, just unauthorized ones. Any chance you can be authorized?

 

[BSA1]

Just a late thought.

If you are terminated for cause (violation company rules) it will delay you collecting unemployment benefits.

And how are you going to explain getting fired for packing heat when applying for jobs?

 

[GhostRider66]

Update:

I took the advice (thank you all kindly) and went to my boss (owner of the company as well). I calmly explained that if that policy was not removed or at the very least greatly changed, I would not be able to carry and would not want to remain in his employ. Based on a recommendation from our internal HR guy (as best I could gather) he, instead, wrote up, printed and signed a formal exception for me that explicitly allows me to carry at work and while on any and all company business. Problem solved for me. Not to seem entirely ungrateful but this does nothing for other employees who may also want to carry here. It's not in the best of neighborhoods. I think my experience is still going to lead me out the door eventually here.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I took the advice (thank you all kindly) and went to my boss (owner of the company as well). I calmly explained that if that policy was not removed or at the very least greatly changed, I would not be able to carry and would not want to remain in his employ. Based on a recommendation from our internal HR guy (as best I could gather) he, instead, wrote up, printed and signed a formal exception for me that explicitly allows me to carry at work and while on any and all company business. Problem solved for me. Not to seem entirely ungrateful but this does nothing for other employees who may also want to carry here. It's not in the best of neighborhoods. I think my experience is still going to lead me out the door eventually here.

Maybe before pointing the finger at the employers, you might want to comply with the Texas law. Seems to me like they are sticking their necks out pretty far for you:

OCC §1702.161. SECURITY OFFICER COMMISSION REQUIRED.
(a) An individual may not accept employment as a security officer to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the individual's duties unless the individual holds a security officer commission.
(b) An individual employed as a security officer may not knowingly carry a firearm during the course of performing duties as a security officer unless the board has issued a security officer commission to the individual.
(c) A person may not hire or employ an individual as a security officer to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the individual's duties unless the individual holds a security officer commission.

 

[JRH6856]

^^^^ Yes, be sure that "written exception" does not designate you as an armed security officer or state that you need to be armed to provide any security services. The only reason for being armed should be for your personal protection concerns.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Well-written policies should include the title of the person with the authority to authorize exceptions. YMMV, but I know I'd certainly want better assurance than a note from a middle manager based on a recommendation from the local HR guy.

 

[GhostRider66]

Yeah, really nothing mentioned anywhere about security. Just says that I am allowed to carry my weapon concealed. His thoughts on what I may or may not do if an incident may arise might vary wildly. I'll not bring it up as he has not. As far as I'm concerned, when he said, "head of security", it entails IT security and making sure the shredding bins get emptied.

 

[GhostRider66]

note from a middle manager

Psst. He owns all seven companies here. He's the lead attorney for the law firm. I think I'm solid.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

I apologize for missing the part about him being the owner.

 

[Trent]

I took the advice (thank you all kindly) and went to my boss (owner of the company as well). I calmly explained that if that policy was not removed or at the very least greatly changed, I would not be able to carry and would not want to remain in his employ. Based on a recommendation from our internal HR guy (as best I could gather) he, instead, wrote up, printed and signed a formal exception for me that explicitly allows me to carry at work and while on any and all company business. Problem solved for me.

Congrats!

Level heads often prevail.

And you've set a good example that other concerned employees can exercise if they choose.

At my IT company we have "bring your gun to work days" and our team building events usually occur at the local sportsman's club with guns in our hands sending lead downrange.

 

[gamestalker]

I would venture to guess that any legal action would only apply if you refused to comply after the initial request from "The Company". Although you were already informed, I do believe someone must specifically and directly make such a request to you verbally.

I don't know much about Texas law in this respect, but here in Arizona business's with a "Gun Free" sign posted doesn't result with someone being cited until they have refused to remove the firearm from the building when told to do so. Here in Az., about the worst that could happen, provided you comply, is you would be terminated, but not cited unless you refuse to comply. But again, this is in Az. where gun rights are protected to about the highest degree.

I was approached in a local mall a while back while OC carrying. And even though a sign was posted, the cop told me I would not be cited because I complied when told to remove it from the mall. He may have just given me a break since I entered through doors in which a sign wasn't posted, and that I honestly wasn't aware of the signs that did exist?


GS