SB321: Employer parking lots

Discussions about relevant bills filed and their status.

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


GEM-Texas
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#31

Post by GEM-Texas »

Time scale for Governor Perry to sign this - if he isn't busy running for President?

RPB
Banned
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#32

Post by RPB »

IIRC Governor must sign or veto within 10 days while Leg is in session; 20 days if it isn't.

Becomes law Sept 1st if signed or even if he does nothing. I doubt he'd veto.


I could be wrong, but I think that's the process.
I'm no lawyer

"Never show your hole card" "Always have something in reserve"

ammoboy2
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:44 am

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#33

Post by ammoboy2 »

Per the DOD contractors

Fort Worth Lockheed would be a problem since it is Federally owned property which is leased by LM with access controlled parking

Bell owns its property so the SB321 should apply but of course your mileage may vary.
User avatar

texanron
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1152
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:02 pm
Location: Mount Joy, PA

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#34

Post by texanron »

My employer clearly states in the employee manual that firearms were prohibited from being stored in private vehicles parked on company property. The paragraph in the manual even mentioned if employee had a CHL. I can not wait for Governer Perry to sign this bill and for Sept. 1 to get here. Thanks to everyone that banged out the phone calls and burned up the fax machines.

YEE HAW Y'ALL!!!
12/17/2010 CHL
5/21/2012 non-resident CHL

rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#35

Post by rp_photo »

Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"

rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#36

Post by rp_photo »

GEM-Texas wrote:Time scale for Governor Perry to sign this - if he isn't busy running for President?
Once he does, his name is worthy of appearing on all guns, not just a limited-edition LCP :???:
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#37

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.
No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.

rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#38

Post by rp_photo »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?
No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.
Very important detail.

As far as lots or garages with 30.06 at the entrances in general, is a gun which remains in a locked vehicle exempt?
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
User avatar

tbrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#39

Post by tbrown »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.
No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.
But the sign would still apply to customers, visitors and other people who aren't employees. Right?
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#40

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

tbrown wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.
No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.
But the sign would still apply to customers, visitors and other people who aren't employees. Right?
Correct.

Chas.
User avatar

flintknapper
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4962
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: Deep East Texas

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#41

Post by flintknapper »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
tbrown wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.
No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.
But the sign would still apply to customers, visitors and other people who aren't employees. Right?
Correct.

Chas.
So how would it affect (if at all) those folks if they were carrying (in their vehicle) under MPA?
Spartans ask not how many, but where!
User avatar

boomstick
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:16 am
Location: Pasadena, Texas

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#42

Post by boomstick »

This bill applies to the relationship between the employer and the employee.
SSGT, USAF Security Police (1975-1981)
NORAD Cheyenne Mountain, Osan AB Korea, Ellsworth AFB S.D.
TX CHL/LTC Instructor (2011-2017)
NRA Pistol Instructor (2015-2017)

AggieCHL
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 6:49 pm

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#43

Post by AggieCHL »

Per the DOD contractors

Fort Worth Lockheed would be a problem since it is Federally owned property which is leased by LM with access controlled parking
Lockheed in Fort Worth has most, but not all, of its buildings in on Federal Property. They lease a couple of their buildings from a commercial real-estate firm. These leased buildings are not on federal property or owned by Lockheed.

If a Lockheed employee works at one of the buildings that's not on Federal property, then they should be able to carry under SB321. What would get tricky is when they have to drive over to one of the other buildings that is located on Federal property.
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#44

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

flintknapper wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
tbrown wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.
No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.
But the sign would still apply to customers, visitors and other people who aren't employees. Right?
Correct.

Chas.
So how would it affect (if at all) those folks if they were carrying (in their vehicle) under MPA?
Non-CHL Employees with handguns in their cars pursuant to the MPA are protected by SB321, so long as they don't work for a chemical manufacturing plant or a refinery.

Chas.

Right2Carry
Banned
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

#45

Post by Right2Carry »

AggieCHL wrote:
Per the DOD contractors

Fort Worth Lockheed would be a problem since it is Federally owned property which is leased by LM with access controlled parking
Lockheed in Fort Worth has most, but not all, of its buildings in on Federal Property. They lease a couple of their buildings from a commercial real-estate firm. These leased buildings are not on federal property or owned by Lockheed.

If a Lockheed employee works at one of the buildings that's not on Federal property, then they should be able to carry under SB321. What would get tricky is when they have to drive over to one of the other buildings that is located on Federal property.
Lockheed has several facilities around the DFW area and the only one that I know of for sure that is on Federal Property is the Main Plant out at Carswell. Look out for Lockheed and other DOD contractors to claim that they manufacture Chemicals or Explosives in order to circumvent the bill.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
Locked

Return to “2011 Texas Legislative Session”