TexasCHLforum.com

Right2Carry wrote:

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.

They are missing the air permit part

canvasbck wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

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.

They are missing the air permit part

I hope you are correct.

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.

This is really good to know. I was expecting my employer to have 30.06 signs ready to be posted at 12:00 am September 1,2011. I'm curious to see what the update to the employee manual will say.

Another question, under the petrochemical exemption a parking area has to meet a three pronged test to be considered secure. It must 1) physically contain the plant, 2) be closed to the public, and 3) the ingress must be continuously monitored by security personnel.

Under 3, there is not a definition of "monitored" or of "security personnel". Would a camera that broadcasts to a board operator meet this standard? In other words, could a chemical storage facility that does not have security guards mount a camera on their entrance and have the image from that camera displayed for the board operator and then be considered a secure area?

canvasbck wrote:Another question, under the petrochemical exemption a parking area has to meet a three pronged test to be considered secure. It must 1) physically contain the plant, 2) be closed to the public, and 3) the ingress must be continuously monitored by security personnel.

Under 3, there is not a definition of "monitored" or of "security personnel". Would a camera that broadcasts to a board operator meet this standard? In other words, could a chemical storage facility that does not have security guards mount a camera on their entrance and have the image from that camera displayed for the board operator and then be considered a secure area?

That sounds like monitoring. Especially if you need an access card to enter the gate.

However, I think many of the plants (with air permits, etc.) already have full-time on-site security, if my last visit to facilities in the Houston Ship Channel area are any indication.

tbrown wrote:

canvasbck wrote:Another question, under the petrochemical exemption a parking area has to meet a three pronged test to be considered secure. It must 1) physically contain the plant, 2) be closed to the public, and 3) the ingress must be continuously monitored by security personnel.

Under 3, there is not a definition of "monitored" or of "security personnel". Would a camera that broadcasts to a board operator meet this standard? In other words, could a chemical storage facility that does not have security guards mount a camera on their entrance and have the image from that camera displayed for the board operator and then be considered a secure area?

That sounds like monitoring. Especially if you need an access card to enter the gate.

However, I think many of the plants (with air permits, etc.) already have full-time on-site security, if my last visit to facilities in the Houston Ship Channel area are any indication.

You are correct that the vast majority of facilities have security staff. The exception would be the underground storage facilities (salt domes), and small gas fractionation units. Our company has such a facility that has exactly what I described above, hence my question.

Charles, as I read the law (or what I thought was the bill posted online) it refers to "private vehicles".

What is a "private vehicle"? What if somone drives a car owned by and titled to the company as an recognized assigned vehicle, that you are taxed for as part of your compensation package?

CB

chuckybrown wrote:What is a "private vehicle"? What if somone drives a car owned by and titled to the company as an recognized assigned vehicle, that you are taxed for as part of your compensation package?

It looks like the new law will not apply to "a vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee's duties"

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00321F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

apostate wrote:

chuckybrown wrote:What is a "private vehicle"? What if somone drives a car owned by and titled to the company as an recognized assigned vehicle, that you are taxed for as part of your compensation package?

It looks like the new law will not apply to "a vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee's duties"

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00321F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You may be paying taxes for it because it's considered part of your compensation package, but it's still owned by the company and the parking lot bill specifically excludes company owned vehicles.

Brian

If the company prohibited guns, I would challenge the taxation, because I don't really control the vehicle.

tacticool wrote:If the company prohibited guns, I would challenge the taxation, because I don't really control the vehicle.

The taxation is a federal issue. Good luck with winning that challenge.

Brian

I'm interpreting the vehicle provision to mean that the parking lot bill does not authorize you to carry in a company vehicle. Is it correct then to conclude that if your company policy specifically allows CHL holders to carry weapons on company property you may also carry in a company vehicle, or does the parking lot bill remove my ability to carry in a company vehicle even though my company policy allows CHL holders to carry weapons on company property?

VMI77 wrote:I'm interpreting the vehicle provision to mean that the parking lot bill does not authorize you to carry in a company vehicle. Is it correct then to conclude that if your company policy specifically allows CHL holders to carry weapons on company property you may also carry in a company vehicle, or does the parking lot bill remove my ability to carry in a company vehicle even though my company policy allows CHL holders to carry weapons on company property?

The law restricts employers not employees. It prohibits some employers from having some anti-gun policies. It doesn't restrict your ability to carry if you have a CHL, at least not directly.

I have been informed by people who have asked the security department at the Shell Deer Park facility, that they will not allow guns in their parking lots for any reason.
Who would I need to contact to see they honor the law, TSRA?

RandyM wrote:I have been informed by people who have asked the security department at the Shell Deer Park facility, that they will not allow guns in their parking lots for any reason.
Who would I need to contact to see they honor the law, TSRA?

Come September 1st, it won't matter what they say, they won't be able to fire you for having a gun secured in your car, as long as your car is parked in a lot that meets the definitions in the law. Now, they may fire you for some other stated reason, but they had better be able to prove that reason. The truth is that, as long as you are parking in the kind of lot provided for in the law, come September 1st they aren't going to be able to search your car looking for guns.