Texas gun laws updates

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

I wonder if it would be discriminatory for an outfit to require all new employees to obtain cwc permits and carry?
Perhaps hold company staff meetings at a local range?

When an employer engages in such "requirements" the employer assumes liability for qualifications and skill training as well as the nature of the firearm and rounds carried with it. BTW: Military service is NOT an adequate standard to authorize the carrying of a firearm in a civilian populated facility.

BTW: I'm "on record" in here and elsewhere regarding the usefulness of mandatory "training" for concealed handgun licenses and/or the carrying of a handgun in any place outside the person's residence. Anecdotal news releases of "carriers" thwarting an event do not justify mass carrying. Plinking at paper at the "range" or out in the "woods" is a far cry from neutralizing a person in a facility crowded with hysterical citizens fleeing or hiding from an active shooter or the fear of one. Mandatory handgun training doesn't even touch on the issues faced in reality. TV doesn't either.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

When an employer engages in such "requirements" the employer assumes liability for qualifications and skill training as well as the nature of the firearm and rounds carried with it.

Yup. And there are insurance cos that will cover.

But would it be discriminatory to not hire someone because of that requirement.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

When an employer engages in such "requirements" the employer assumes liability for qualifications and skill training as well as the nature of the firearm and rounds carried with it. BTW: Military service is NOT an adequate standard to authorize the carrying of a firearm in a civilian populated facility.

BTW: I'm "on record" in here and elsewhere regarding the usefulness of mandatory "training" for concealed handgun licenses and/or the carrying of a handgun in any place outside the person's residence. Anecdotal news releases of "carriers" thwarting an event do not justify mass carrying. Plinking at paper at the "range" or out in the "woods" is a far cry from neutralizing a person in a facility crowded with hysterical citizens fleeing or hiding from an active shooter or the fear of one. Mandatory handgun training doesn't even touch on the issues faced in reality. TV doesn't either.

Amen - LL

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And how do you know that the signs are being ignored? Would you put a job paying a 6-figure salary in jeopardy by carrying a concealed handgun into the building?

BTW, every year every company employee must sign a note stating that he or she has read the company's Code of Conduct, with it clearly stated in there that carrying any gun into any company building is a violation and the employee will be subject to termination.

Again, simply my experiences. I'm not saying this is happening in large numbers, it is the outlier, but I honestly believe it's far more prevalent than you want to believe and far more often that a mass shooting attempt.

As I noted, a gentlemen I consulted with always carried and I felt safer for it.

And those codes of conduct signatures are a joke if nothing is searched or checked. I was consulting with a company that had all that similar BS and I had drinks with one of the VPs one evening and she was showing me her 9mm(a little sig sauer if I'm remembering correctly) that never left her purse when she went anywhere, including work, unless she had to pass through metal detectors. Then it remained in her glove compartment.

So again, my experiences, but if my experiences have put me in numerous contact with people doing it, then it's certainly not anomalies.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Yup. And there are insurance cos that will cover.

But would it be discriminatory to not hire someone because of that requirement.

Probably not coverage for gross negligence or intentional acts and/or "acts of violence" .... etc.....

As for "discrimination" as far as I am aware "non-firearm" people are not a "protected group" nor are "firearm" people a "protected group" in so far as "employment discrimination." A work place prohibition as to firearms would not create an actionable discrimination claim based upon firearm owners being a "protected class" and I frankly doubt Nonowners would be either.

If businesses can prohibit firearms being introduced into their business, I doubt see much distinction for employees, unless some union loon negotiates such a provision in the contract with the employer.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Probably not coverage for gross negligence or intentional acts and/or "acts of violence" .... etc.....

As for "discrimination" as far as I am aware "non-firearm" people are not a "protected group" nor are "firearm" people a "protected group" in so far as "employment discrimination." A work place prohibition as to firearms would not create an actionable discrimination claim based upon firearm owners being a "protected class" and I frankly doubt Nonowners would be either.

If businesses can prohibit firearms being introduced into their business, I doubt see much distinction for employees, unless some union loon negotiates such a provision in the contract with the employer.

You really should go back to work Counselor. Your amateur hour analysis gets tiresome

[oeb11]

Cannot understand the function of a Mirror!!!
Happy to denigrate our military and yet exercise the freedom our military preserves
See how welcome the AofS is in Tehran!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

BTW, every year every company employee must sign a note stating that he or she has read the company's Code of Conduct, with it clearly stated in there that carrying any gun into any company building is a violation and the employee will be subject to termination.

What? And just how do you know that? ....

... every year every company employee...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

.....

Actually I did some research on your link but didn't get the chance to post my findings yesterday:

"According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, "gun free zones" (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings."


Unfortunately the article does not go into any detail to back up that statement so I took it upon myself to look into the claims.

My findings are that there have been 17 deadly mass shooting in 2019, with a "mass shooting" defined as one in which at least 3 people, not including the shooter, died.

"My findings"?

99% speculation .... for example ...

https://www.elpasotexas.gov/police-department

There were plenty of Hispanic "targets" at the El Paso PD!

Contrary to your ridiculous conclusions regarding "targets" ...

... these "mass shootings" involve the attack upon SOFT targets! "Soft" means less likely to shoot back.

Schools, employment facilities, churches, shopping centers, and large department stores .... THEATERS! A "GUN FREE ZONE" is not relevant to the discussion.

.... a cartel in Mexico just killed as many people ... "Mexicans"!.... and "hung them out" for a message.

BTW: Mexico is a "gun free zone"!!!!!!!!!!!!! But .... the cartel has them (some from Obaminable), the mountain people have them, citizens have them (ever been away from the tourist trap on "new year's eve"? ... lead rain)

What's their murder rate compared to the U.S. per capita.

If you choose not to own or carry a firearm .... great. That's your business, but don't go preaching your childish banter to anyone. You've never been a "gun zone" .... with live fire potential.... so your anecdotal b.s. and "research" is just that. Since you're an expert on Israel, you are intimately familiar with their "security" at their schools. We should have the same as well as theaters, malls, stores, churches, entertainment events, buildings where people are employed, etc., just like we do at airports and government buildings. It's scardy cats like you that put everyone at risk .... please stay on the porch.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Again, simply my experiences. I'm not saying this is happening in large numbers, it is the outlier, but I honestly believe it's far more prevalent than you want to believe and far more often that a mass shooting attempt.

As I noted, a gentlemen I consulted with always carried and I felt safer for it.

And those codes of conduct signatures are a joke if nothing is searched or checked. I was consulting with a company that had all that similar BS and I had drinks with one of the VPs one evening and she was showing me her 9mm(a little sig sauer if I'm remembering correctly) that never left her purse when she went anywhere, including work, unless she had to pass through metal detectors. Then it remained in her glove compartment.

So again, my experiences, but if my experiences have put me in numerous contact with people doing it, then it's certainly not anomalies.

But you did not answer my question.

Would you put a high-paying job at risk by carrying a handgun into a work location that made it abundantly clear that you would be fired if you were caught with it?

The Code Of Conduct simply lays out guidelines. IF you carry a handgun on premise, you will be fired. Same as the signs that designate any establishment a gun-free zone. No one checks you as you enter but IF you are caught with a gun on premise, you suffer the consequences, which in most cases are minor.

How effective are these rules? I don't have the answer but I differ with you as to how effective they are.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"My findings"?

99% speculation .... for example ...

https://www.elpasotexas.gov/police-department

There were plenty of Hispanic "targets" at the El Paso PD!

Contrary to your ridiculous conclusions regarding "targets" ...

... these "mass shootings" involve the attack upon SOFT targets! "Soft" means less likely to shoot back.

Schools, employment facilities, churches, shopping centers, and large department stores .... THEATERS! A "GUN FREE ZONE" is not relevant to the discussion.

.... a cartel in Mexico just killed as many people ... "Mexicans"!.... and "hung them out" for a message.

BTW: Mexico is a "gun free zone"!!!!!!!!!!!!! But .... the cartel has them (some from Obaminable), the mountain people have them, citizens have them (ever been away from the tourist trap on "new year's eve"? ... lead rain)

What's their murder rate compared to the U.S. per capita.

If you choose not to own or carry a firearm .... great. That's your business, but don't go preaching your childish banter to anyone. You've never been a "gun zone" .... with live fire potential.... so your anecdotal b.s. and "research" is just that. Since you're an expert on Israel, you are intimately familiar with their "security" at their schools. We should have the same as well as theaters, malls, stores, churches, entertainment events, buildings where people are employed, etc., just like we do at airports and government buildings. It's scardy cats like you that put everyone at risk .... please stay on the porch.

More drivel from the King of Drivel.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What? And just how do you know that? ....

The form is electronically sent to EVERY company employer and must be returned within a certain number of days.

Sorry if I believe that I know more about the policies at my company than you believe you do.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

But you did not answer my question.

Would you put a high-paying job at risk by carrying a handgun into a work location that made it abundantly clear that you would be fired if you were caught with it?

The Code Of Conduct simply lays out guidelines. IF you carry a handgun on premise, you will be fired. Same as the signs that designate any establishment a gun-free zone. No one checks you as you enter but IF you are caught with a gun on premise, you suffer the consequences, which in most cases are minor.

How effective are these rules? I don't have the answer but I differ with you as to how effective they are.

I answered your question with anecdotal observations to the best of my ability.

Yes, I've seen people laugh off these codes of conduct in very high paying positions.

And I admitted that it's probably low volume, but also that it's probably larger volume than mass shootings.

[nevergaveitathought]

I shudder to think of conservatives being before leftist judges if red flag laws are instituted,

safe guards? look at the fisa abuse against trump

oh you believe in God and you think the founding fathers did good? hey this white supremacist thinks the constitution should be interpreted as written, very racist!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I answered your question with anecdotal observations to the best of my ability.

Yes, I've seen people laugh off these codes of conduct in very high paying positions.

And I admitted that it's probably low volume, but also that it's probably larger volume than mass shootings.

I thought the question I asked would be answered with either a "Yes" or "No".

Whether laughed at or not, violating a company's Code of Conduct can be basis for dismissal. In my many years with my company, I knew of 3 incidents in which employees were fired (not downsized). In each case it was a violation of conduct that was spelled out in the Code of Conduct as being grounds for dismissal.