Charles Wrote:
It's not a separate issue and I agree that people cannot legally hunt on another person's property without permission.
I believe it is a separate issue since the premise (supposedly) is to help curtail illegal hunting on gas/oil leases.
There are already game laws (and trespass laws) that address that issue. I can cite them if necessary. Also, why is the bill worded such that it only applies to the “parking area”, if illegal hunting is the issue? I can assure…no one is hunting anywhere near the activity center of a gas/oil rig.
But it is done and that's why the "no guns" language is in some O&G leases.
It is a problem on some leases, no doubt about it. So… if the land/mineral owner does not want guns (of any type) on his property, all he has to do is stipulate that… as a condition of the lease agreement.
The oil/gas company can accept those terms or not.
FWIW, everything (literally) is negotiable in a gas/oil lease agreement. If I didn’t want any Black Dodge Trucks on my property, I could put that in my lease agreement. Would legislators then come up with a law concerning that?
There is NO problem with lease agreement practices that need “fixing”, especially as concerns illegal hunting.
It would apply to anywhere the employee parked. It doesn't have to be paved or otherwise improved. If an employee steps out of the vehicle, it's parked and the exclusion would apply.
It can’t apply anywhere the employee is parked…because of the language of the bill. An exception would be that the employer deemed the entire property (under lease) as a parking lot.
But, it is common for only certain parts of a property to be under lease (just enough to create a pool for gas wells). So if an employee is parked 10 feet outside that area…..then what? (Happens all the time).
Also….what will be the definition of “parked”? If it is “stepping out of the vehicle” then all I need to do is drive around, shoot/hunt all I want, then… if I take an animal….my passenger gets out, retrieves it and the new parking lot exclusion has not technically been violated.
There are already broader game laws on the books to address this. IMO, this is not the true purpose of the P/L exception anyway.
Again, I have not and will not do one second of research to confirm this statement since it came from someone I trust.
I’m good with that. I take you for your word…and your resources. I disagree (and will point out why), but do not require research or links to stats on your part.
If the employer parking lot bill were to pass without this exception and an oil and gas company has leases with the "no guns" provision, then the law would force the employer to breach the contract.
I don’t understand this part…unless the new law was made to be retroactive. Please explain, I am sure there is something I am missing.
This exception will impact very few people; the school district will impact tens of thousands.
The exception has the potential to affect a large number of people, depending upon how many choose to keep a firearm with them… under the methods currently legal (CHL, MPA, other).
But, even if one group is comparatively small, why throw them under the bus?
Why is the security of an Oil Rig Worker less significant than that of Car Salesman, a Lawyer, a Nurse, or anyone else that parks a vehicle at their place of employment?
The answer is:
It is not.
So, the only possible conclusion…is that these folks are being sacrificed (politicians will call this compromise) so that a lame (I mean amended) version of the Parking Lot bill has a chance of passing.
Then… maybe 10 yrs. down the road we can make a little more progress.
After all this time and effort…is this really the best we can do? Someone convince me.