SB321: Employer parking lots

Discussions about relevant bills filed and their status.

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


GEM-Texas
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby GEM-Texas » Sat May 28, 2011 5:02 pm

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


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

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby RPB » Sat May 28, 2011 5:46 pm

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: 106
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:44 am

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby ammoboy2 » Sat May 28, 2011 6:05 pm

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: 1152
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:02 pm
Location: Mount Joy, PA

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby texanron » Sun May 29, 2011 6:59 am

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: 809
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby rp_photo » Sun May 29, 2011 10:30 am

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: 809
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby rp_photo » Sun May 29, 2011 10:34 am

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: 16591
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sun May 29, 2011 10:51 am

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.
Image


rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby rp_photo » Sun May 29, 2011 11:15 am

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: 1554
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby tbrown » Sun May 29, 2011 11:53 am

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: 16591
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sun May 29, 2011 11:58 am

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.
Image

User avatar

flintknapper
Senior Member
Posts: 4849
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: Deep East Texas

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby flintknapper » Sun May 29, 2011 4:47 pm

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: 135
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:16 am
Location: Pasadena, Texas

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby boomstick » Sun May 29, 2011 4:57 pm

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: 1
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 6:49 pm

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby AggieCHL » Mon May 30, 2011 7:01 pm

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: 16591
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Mon May 30, 2011 7:17 pm

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.
Image


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

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Postby Right2Carry » Mon May 30, 2011 7:38 pm

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


Return to “2011 Texas Legislative Session”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests