Page 2 of 2

Re: Proof that SB321 is not limited to CHL's

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:30 pm
by speedsix
tacticool wrote:
txsmokeater wrote:I work for one of those companies. I know in the past law if you passed through a gate access point or guarded enterance, I could not leave a gun in my vehicle. I do park in a lot at my site; we don't actually drive into the plant. Does SB321 allow me now to keep it in my vehicle? I'm not a lawyer by any means and I want to make sure I understand all the legal talk. :bigear:
Is the parking lot open to the public? Is it inside of a secured and restricted area that's monitored?

...the plant is inside...the parking lot/garage/etc must be OUTSIDE the secured/restricted/monitored area...it's kinda confoosin!!!

Re: Proof that SB321 is not limited to CHL's

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:02 pm
by txsmokeater
speedsix wrote:.....the parking lot must be OUTSIDE the area that's secured and restricted and meets the three criteria...
.
This is pretty much the law now. I pass by/get checked in by a guard, then drive to a parking lot. I then have to walk throught a card activated turn-stile. So I am actually in a "double" protected lot. Being as I'm only 6 miles from home, and I want to keep my job and NOT challange the HR team, I think I'll continue to leave my weapon at home, it's just no worth the hassle. I can see the companies making a big deal if you actually drove into the plant, but we don't at mine.

Re: Proof that SB321 is not limited to CHL's

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:52 pm
by C-dub
I thought it was pretty clear that it applied to CHLs and anyone else who could legally possess a gun or ammunition. Sounds like Mr. Redneck was either stirring up trouble or isn't as smart as he thinks.

Re: Proof that SB321 is not limited to CHL's

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:08 pm
by txsmokeater
C-dub wrote:I thought it was pretty clear that it applied to CHLs and anyone else who could legally possess a gun or ammunition. Sounds like Mr. Redneck was either stirring up trouble or isn't as smart as he thinks.
Are you referring to me?

Re: Proof that SB321 is not limited to CHL's

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:17 pm
by Skiprr
txsmokeater wrote:
C-dub wrote:I thought it was pretty clear that it applied to CHLs and anyone else who could legally possess a gun or ammunition. Sounds like Mr. Redneck was either stirring up trouble or isn't as smart as he thinks.
Are you referring to me?
Not to speak for C-dub, but no, he wasn't referring to you at all.

Check this post in the thread for background.

And, welcome aboard!

Re: Proof that SB321 is not limited to CHL's

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:10 pm
by txsmokeater
Thanks, I was wondering where that was coming from.