Pistol in truck at work

[oldag]

If they let you go and state no reason, then it would be up to you to PROVE that the reason (if any) they had was unlawful. That's pretty damn close to carte blanche, bucko. If they keep their traps shut and don't document in writing anything about such unlawful reasons (such as age, sex, race discrimination), then the worker and the worker's attorney are pretty much stuck like Chuck.

In theory, you are correct.

Speaking from the management side of the desk, I wish it were that easy.

Fact is, most companies' internal policies require documentation (no exceptions) before an employee is terminated (for any reason). I have never worked for any company (big or small) that would allow someone to be dismissed with no documentation at all.

Some small employers do not have such policies, but most of these are not aware/sophisticated enough not to leave some sort of trail.

Theory vs reality.

 

[diesel1959]

In theory, you are correct.

Speaking from the management side of the desk, I wish it were that easy.

Fact is, most companies' internal policies require documentation (no exceptions) before an employee is terminated (for any reason). I have never worked for any company (big or small) that would allow someone to be dismissed with no documentation at all.

Some small employers do not have such policies, but most of these are not aware/sophisticated enough not to leave some sort of trail.

Theory vs reality.

And that's why most employment situations are not actually true "employment at will". The other things that you, and I, and others have stated modify a particular situation into being a sort of contract position with certain protections.

But when you talk about a situation hypothetically, and state the employment as "employment at will", those protections are not present. And the OP was talking about a situation that might arise fairly early in his employment, during which he would likely be still in his probationary period. And nearly every employment situation I've been in permits summary firing without cause during the probationary period.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

If one is fired, can they get unemployment?
I thought it was only available if "laid off ".

You can get unemployment if you are fired. My husband did. He was fired because of a customer complaint about something that affected his area, (medical equipment) but wasn’t his error. There was an investigation and it was deemed the he was not fired due to his job performance and he got benefits for a good long while.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

But that is inapplicable during the time when you are parked at work and NOT inside your vehicle because YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST BE OCCUPYING YOUR VEHICLE. Castle Doctrine refers to presumptions of reasonableness of force used, NOT anything to do with whether having a firearm in the vehicle itself is lawful or allowable in an employer's parking lot.

Right.
But remember, I was replying to merely address the issue brought up about whether or not carrying in vehicles has anything to do with castle doctrine. And it does.

 

[oldag]

And that's why most employment situations are not actually true "employment at will". The other things that you, and I, and others have stated modify a particular situation into being a sort of contract position with certain protections.

But when you talk about a situation hypothetically, and state the employment as "employment at will", those protections are not present. And the OP was talking about a situation that might arise fairly early in his employment, during which he would likely be still in his probationary period. And nearly every employment situation I've been in permits summary firing without cause during the probationary period.

Agree on the probationary period.

 

[BRD@66]

Agree on the probationary period.

This was the situ where I worked. Much easier (for employer) to boot a newby than after 6 months probationary period.

 

[ROGER4314]

Your company can fire you for any reason but I refused to worry about it. I worked every possible combination of shifts and came home very late or early and in the dark. I always carried my little buddy and left it in the car. You can get another job. You only get one life! Do what you need to do and keep your mouth shut.

Flash

 

[Younggun]

Yes, it does.
https://blog.uslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/

“Texas Penal Code §9.31 (governing the justified use of non-deadly force) and §9.32 (governing the justified use of deadly force) are our state’s version of the Castle Doctrine. Just proving that everything is bigger in Texas, our law extends the “Castle Doctrine” beyond your residence to include your occupied vehicle and workplace.”
...
“Turning to the subject of vehicles, Texas Penal Code §30.01 defines a vehicle “as any device, in, on, or by which any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in the normal course of commerce or transportation.” This is a very broad definition and appears to include anything that carries people or property from one place to another, including cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, golf carts, etc. The important point to remember is that you or someone else must be occupying the vehicle to be given the presumption of reasonableness under Texas Penal Code §9.31 and §9.32.”

The law that specifically allows vehicle carry in Texas is the Motorist Protection Act and is written separate from laws concerning carrying on ones property. Maybe we see it from different angles, but to me car carry isn't an extension of castle doctrine in any way other than the lack of duty to retreat which applies from your kitchen to the city park and everywhere in between.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

The law that specifically allows vehicle carry in Texas is the Motorist Protection Act and is written separate from laws concerning carrying on ones property. Maybe we see it from different angles, but to me car carry isn't an extension of castle doctrine in any way other than the lack of duty to retreat which applies from your kitchen to the city park and everywhere in between.

Well, the title of the article that had the vehicle carry information was called “Understanding the Castle Doctrine”, so clearly, it’s thought by some to be a form of extension of this concept. And I’ve heard that years back, and remember vaguely when the law changed and we were told that we could do car carry differently from the past; it was explained to me as an extension of Castle doctrine. (I wasn’t into guns then, and you were likely too young to remember).

Perhaps someone who remembers can help me out. But I’ll concede that it’s not exactly the same thing, there are differences.

This article explains the differences and makes your point.
https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/is-your-car-really-an-extension-of-your-home/

ETA: found an old thread. Didn’t read it yet.
https://www.texasguntalk.com/threads/castle-doctrine-in-vehicle.20967/

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Also:
Found this interesting.
https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/119767.PDF

Don’t have time to research it now though, gotta get to the old workplace. See ya.

 

[Lunyfringe]

This article explains the differences and makes your point.
https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/is-your-car-really-an-extension-of-your-home/

Just thought I'd bring up- since this article specifically mentions vehicles in Post Office parking lots- It still seems to be a "grey area", or something not everyone is aware of..

There IS a precedent for allowing for firearms IN your vehicle in a Post Office parking lot...
http://www.guns.com/2013/07/11/denver-federal-court-rules-firearms-legal-in-usps-parking-lots/
Another article by David Kopel:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nt-at-the-post-office/?utm_term=.8276ce886669

Some have argued that the way this judge worded the ruling it only applies to Mr. Bonidy in the Avon PO parking lot... but it's a precedent nonetheless.

(but I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, blah blah blah...)

 

[Tom W.]

I am starting a new job next week and I was wondering if there were any exceptions to being able to have a pistol in your vehicle in the parking lot of work. I drove past where I will be working today and they had a bunch of “no guns allowed” signs at the entrances to the parking lots.
I thought companies couldn’t prohibit employees from having firearms in their personal vehicles parked in the parking lot. What am I missing?

They can not stop you legally from having a gun in the parking lot UNLESS you have to enter past a barricade. A barricade is listed as either a guard shack or arm that prevents entry to those who do not have a badge. Best bet, is to just keep your mouth shut and you will have no problems.

 

[majormadmax]

They can not stop you legally from having a gun in the parking lot UNLESS you have to enter past a barricade. A barricade is listed as either a guard shack or arm that prevents entry to those who do not have a badge.

Show us that in the law...

 

[TxStetson]

Well, the title of the article that had the vehicle carry information was called “Understanding the Castle Doctrine”, so clearly, it’s thought by some to be a form of extension of this concept. And I’ve heard that years back, and remember vaguely when the law changed and we were told that we could do car carry differently from the past; it was explained to me as an extension of Castle doctrine. (I wasn’t into guns then, and you were likely too young to remember).

Perhaps someone who remembers can help me out. But I’ll concede that it’s not exactly the same thing, there are differences.

This article explains the differences and makes your point.
https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/is-your-car-really-an-extension-of-your-home/

ETA: found an old thread. Didn’t read it yet.
https://www.texasguntalk.com/threads/castle-doctrine-in-vehicle.20967/

Castle Doctrine only applies when you are occupying your vehicle.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

But that’s so weird. Like before, I remember that you couldn’t have a loaded pistol in your car.

But then with the passing of these laws, I came to understand that it became ok.

But is it like,
You step out of your car (unoccupied now) and poof, the loaded gun being in there becomes illegal? Or all of a sudden not associated with “Castle Doctrine”-ish concepts?

I’m sorry, but my being analytical makes it hard for me to grasp concepts sometimes. I promise it’s not because I’m stupid, and I’m not trying to be flip.

 

[avvidclif]

What's hard to understand? You are allowed to have a pistol in your vehicle. Occupied or not. No mention of castle doctrine. If you want to go against your employers rules and get fired don't cry to me. Don't holler and scream about the law says whatever. You want to work abide by their rules. If you don't like the rules either get them changed or find another job, SIMPLE.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

What's hard to understand? You are allowed to have a pistol in your vehicle. Occupied or not. No mention of castle doctrine. If you want to go against your employers rules and get fired don't cry to me. Don't holler and scream about the law says whatever. You want to work abide by their rules. If you don't like the rules either get them changed or find another job, SIMPLE.

What’s hard to understand?
Well the pitching of the being allowed to have a pistol in your vehicle as PART OF THE CASTLE DOCTRINE by multiple people back in the day (2007) as well as the two articles I linked above MENTIONING CASTLE DOCTRINE as it relates to being armed while occupying a vehicle... yet people are saying that having a pistol in your vehicle has NOTHING to do with CASTLE DOCTRINE. So that’s what is confusing.

 

[pronstar]

You want to work abide by their rules. If you don't like the rules either get them changed or find another job, SIMPLE.

...or ignore the rules and hope you don't get caught.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TxStetson]

...or ignore the rules and hope you don't get caught.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That’s my philosophy.

 

[majormadmax]

What’s hard to understand?
Well the pitching of the being allowed to have a pistol in your vehicle as PART OF THE CASTLE DOCTRINE by multiple people back in the day (2007) as well as the two articles I linked above MENTIONING CASTLE DOCTRINE as it relates to being armed while occupying a vehicle... yet people are saying that having a pistol in your vehicle has NOTHING to do with CASTLE DOCTRINE. So that’s what is confusing.

I think you're confusing castle doctrine with the Motorist Protection Act of 2007, which permits any law-abiding Texas resident the legal right to carry a handgun inside their motor vehicle in Texas without a CHL/LTC or any other permit.

Castle Doctrine is essentially your right to defend yourself, which the State of Texas has expanded to include vehicles. Inside your “castle,” under certain circumstances, Texas law presumes you acted reasonably and justifiably if you use force or deadly force to defend yourself against an intruder who enters your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment.

With regard to using force or deadly force to defend your “castle,” the Texas Penal Code specifically uses the word “habitation,” not the words “building” or “property.” Texas has a very limited definition of what qualifies as a person’s habitation. The “Castle Doctrine” does not cover your entire piece of property. The legal term “habitation” is defined by Texas Penal Code §30.01 as “a structure or vehicle adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons; and includes each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.”

Read more from where I stole most of the information in those last two paragraphs at: