Posts

Showing posts from August, 2017

Scimitars, Sabers and Samurai Swords, Oh My! Texas’s New Open Carry of Blades Law

Image
Effective September 1, 2017, and pursuant to House Bill 1935, Texans over the age of eighteen will be permitted to open carry knives with blades longer than five and one-half inches.   Instead of prohibiting the carrying of an “illegal” knife, defined in the prior version of the law as “a knife with a blade over five and one-half inches,” including, without limitation, daggers, dirks, stilettos, poniards, bowie knives, swords, or spears, the new law focuses on public places where these types of blades (now known as “location-restricted knives”) cannot be open carried.     More specifically, under HB 1935, a person commits a felony of the third degree if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a location-restricted knife on the physical premises of a school or educational facility; on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is taking place; on the premises of any court buildings or court offices, or racetracks; or

Citing Stephen Colbert, the Fifth Circuit Rolls Back Several NLRB Handbook Positions

Not long ago, I wrote about how the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB's) positions on various handbook policies transcended common sense.   In a recent opinion, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the following employer handbook policies did not , contrary to the NLRB’s opinion, violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act and “chill” an employee’s organizing rights: (1) encouraging employees to “maintain a positive working environment”; (2) prohibiting "arguing or fighting," "failing to treat others with respect," and "failing to demonstrate appropriate teamwork"; and (3) prohibiting access to electronic information by non-approved individuals. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board , No. 16-60284 ( 5th Cir. July 25, 2017).     According to the Court, the relevant inquiry isn’t whether a rule “could” conceivably be read to cover Section 7 activity, but rather whether a re