Discussion of Pending Bills

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Re: HB 220 - Employer Parking Lots

#16

Post by stevie_d_64 » Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:34 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Added HB 220 by King re: employer parking lots.
I saw this one as well...

I wonder if the loophole will be if the "employee/employer" parking lot has a controlled and manned access gate where the general public may not be able to cross through unless they have business there in the first place???

If my parking area is beyond a controlled access like that, and I carry within that access (whether I am packing or not, or have by some company policy, forced to consent to a search etc etc...) I am wondering if this would help or not...

I mean I am all for the protection under this, but I just see businesses and other entities pushing the envelop back enough to be covered to restrict you still...

Every little bit helps, but I am afraid smart people might figure out a way to screw you over if they so chose to do so...

I'm sure going to look at this one even closer...

See, I just seem to gravitate into thinking like a bad guy for some reason...It helps me figure out if there's a work around (either way) sometimes in these bills...Thats all...

Sorry to be such a pain...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!


kauboy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Burleson, Lone Star State (of course)

Re: HB 220 - Employer Parking Lots

#17

Post by kauboy » Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:40 pm

stevie_d_64 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Added HB 220 by King re: employer parking lots.
Every little bit helps, but I am afraid smart people might figure out a way to screw you over if they so chose to do so...
Yeah, but given the number of incorrect 30.06 signs we see all the time, smart people don't seem to be the norm in the anti-gun groups.
"People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people." - V

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17608
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#18

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:07 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
nitrogen wrote:Law and company policy are different things.

They can fire you for violating company policy, but thye cant file tresspass charges.
Actually this law would restrict the type of policy they could legally have.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00220I.doc
Correct. Texas is an employment at will State, meaning an employer can fire someone for any reason that does not violate Texas or federal law, or no reason at all. There are exceptions, but they are not relevant for this discussion. This bill will make it illegal to fire someone for having a gun in their car.

Chas.

User avatar

nitrogen
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2322
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: Sachse, TX
Contact:

#19

Post by nitrogen » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:20 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
nitrogen wrote:Law and company policy are different things.

They can fire you for violating company policy, but thye cant file tresspass charges.
Actually this law would restrict the type of policy they could legally have.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00220I.doc
Correct. Texas is an employment at will State, meaning an employer can fire someone for any reason that does not violate Texas or federal law, or no reason at all. There are exceptions, but they are not relevant for this discussion. This bill will make it illegal to fire someone for having a gun in their car.

Chas.
Oh NICE!
I guess I should not have commented before I could have read the text of the bill. :oops:
.השואה... לעולם לא עוד
Holocaust... Never Again.
Some people create their own storms and get upset when it rains.
--anonymous

User avatar

Roger Howard
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Texas City, TX

#20

Post by Roger Howard » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:30 pm

These bills are a big step in the right direction. I would still like to see some leglislation reducing the places we are prohibited from carrying. We still need a better definition of a school at a minimum.
If guns kill people, then I can blame mispelled words on my pencil

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#21

Post by stevie_d_64 » Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:12 pm

Roger Howard wrote:These bills are a big step in the right direction. I would still like to see some leglislation reducing the places we are prohibited from carrying. We still need a better definition of a school at a minimum.
Remove "school" (however it is defined) and I bet it all goes away...

I have yet to see anyone with a CCW permit/license anywhere pull a massacre at a "school"...

And if for some absurd reason one does, whether or not they had a permit to begin with was not going to be a factor in the commitment of that criminal act anyway...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!


Tacomaoffroader
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:05 am
Location: Austin, TX

#22

Post by Tacomaoffroader » Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:09 pm

So our vehicles will be extentions of our homes if HB 103 is passed?

Will this be for CHL only or all citizens?

So citizens will be able to carry firearms in their vehicles w/o permits?... this could be good or bad!


oilman
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:19 pm
Location: Washington County

#23

Post by oilman » Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:26 pm

[quote="kauboy"]Yeah but the proposed law states:

Sec. 411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS; LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.
(a) This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right
of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed
under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the
premises of the business.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, a
public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce
any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person
licensed under this subchapter from transporting or storing a
concealed handgun in a locked vehicle in any parking lot, parking
garage, or other designated parking area.
A private employer may
prohibit an employee from transporting or storing a concealed
handgun in a vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area the employer provides for employees if:
(1) the parking lot, garage, or other area is
completely surrounded by a gate and is not open to the public; and
(2) ingress to and egress from the parking lot,
garage, or other area are monitored by security personnel.
(c) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil
action for damages resulting from an occurrence involving the
possession of a concealed handgun by a person licensed under this
subchapter.
(d) This section does not authorize a person licensed under
this subchapter to carry a concealed handgun on any premises where
the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited by state or
federal law.

/quote]

Unfortunately my employer does have a fence with security guys monitoring access. This does nothing to ensure my safety to and from work!


RKirby
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:58 pm

#24

Post by RKirby » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:24 pm

(1) the parking lot, garage, or other area is
completely surrounded by a gate and is not open to the public;


Hmmmm.......kinda hard to surround a parking lot with a gate!!
I'm sure that was meant to read fence. Hope someone catches that mistake before it passes and becomes a useless piece of legislation.

User avatar

quidni
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:04 am
Location: El Paso County
Contact:

#25

Post by quidni » Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:09 pm


Sec. 411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS; LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.
(a) This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right
of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed
under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the
premises of the business.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, a
public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce
any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person
licensed under this subchapter from transporting or storing a
concealed handgun in a locked vehicle in any parking lot, parking
garage, or other designated parking area.
A private employer may
prohibit an employee from transporting or storing a concealed
handgun in a vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area the employer provides for employees if:
(1) the parking lot, garage, or other area is
completely surrounded by a gate and is not open to the public; and
(2) ingress to and egress from the parking lot,
garage, or other area are monitored by security personnel.
(c) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil
action for damages resulting from an occurrence involving the
possession of a concealed handgun by a person licensed under this
subchapter.
(d) This section does not authorize a person licensed under
this subchapter to carry a concealed handgun on any premises where
the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited by state or
federal law.


Would the State of Texas be considered a "public" or a "private" employer? I'm thinking "public" but I can see some admins trying to enforce this based on the "employees only, gated and monitored" clauses.
TSRA / NRA
KA5RLA
All guns have at least two safeties. One's digital, one's cognitive. In other words - keep the digit off the trigger until ready to fire, and THINK. Some guns also have mechanical safeties on top of those. But if the first two don't work, the mechanical ones aren't guaranteed. - me


mrvmax
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:16 pm
Location: Friendswood
Contact:

#26

Post by mrvmax » Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:55 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
nitrogen wrote:Law and company policy are different things.

They can fire you for violating company policy, but thye cant file tresspass charges.
Actually this law would restrict the type of policy they could legally have.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00220I.doc
Correct. Texas is an employment at will State, meaning an employer can fire someone for any reason that does not violate Texas or federal law, or no reason at all. There are exceptions, but they are not relevant for this discussion. This bill will make it illegal to fire someone for having a gun in their car.

Chas.
I've been waiting for this one. I hate working for an employer that forbids weapons in vehicles.

User avatar

Roger Howard
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Texas City, TX

#27

Post by Roger Howard » Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:42 pm

stevie_d_64 wrote:
Roger Howard wrote:These bills are a big step in the right direction. I would still like to see some leglislation reducing the places we are prohibited from carrying. We still need a better definition of a school at a minimum.
Remove "school" (however it is defined) and I bet it all goes away...

I have yet to see anyone with a CCW permit/license anywhere pull a massacre at a "school"...

And if for some absurd reason one does, whether or not they had a permit to begin with was not going to be a factor in the commitment of that criminal act anyway...
I agree with you completely. I'm just saying if we can't get a removal of the restriction we should at least get a definition of school.

I personally feel that there shouldn't be restrictions.

Charles stated in another post that he would like to see the court prohibition stay because emotions can run high if the outcome is negative.

The problem is that we are dealing with peoples emotions on this subject. Not everyone thinks things through when it comes to concealed carry.

You want to be able to carry a gun around my child?? Oh no.. What if....??

It's not logic we fight but emotions.
All of the bills that are being introduced keep us moving in the right direction. We will have to take it one step at a time.
If guns kill people, then I can blame mispelled words on my pencil

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

User avatar

barres
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Prison City, Texas

#28

Post by barres » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:04 am

quidni wrote:Would the State of Texas be considered a "public" or a "private" employer? I'm thinking "public" but I can see some admins trying to enforce this based on the "employees only, gated and monitored" clauses.
I don't know the answer to whether the State is a public or private employer, but I don't know of any State agency that doesn't at least allow their employees to carry to and from work and store their weapons in their vehicles. Even TDCJ (the prison system) has a policy allowing its employees with CHL's to store their guns in their vehicles, and carry into a prison facility is statutorily prohibited.
Remember, in a life-or-death situation, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Barre


wo5m
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:38 pm
Location: Plano, Texas
Contact:

#29

Post by wo5m » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:48 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Correct. Texas is an employment at will State, meaning an employer can fire someone for any reason that does not violate Texas or federal law, or no reason at all. There are exceptions, but they are not relevant for this discussion. This bill will make it illegal to fire someone for having a gun in their car.

Chas.

You point out that Texas in the a employment at will state and that this new law would prevent people from firing people for having a gun in the car, but what happens when they fire you with out reason or some bogus reason altogether? One of the advantages(from the employer side) of being an employment at will state is you can fire someone with out reason. I like the idea but it just seems like there is a loophole that is not in our favor.


kauboy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Burleson, Lone Star State (of course)

#30

Post by kauboy » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:39 pm

Exactly! In Texas, they can simply fire you and give no reason whatsoever. So, even though they won't be able to have a policy to enforce, they can still fire you for "no reason" after learning of a handgun in your vehicle.

At least thats how I understand it. Is that right Charles?

I think its kinda funny how we are already shredding this bill and finding any and all possible backdoors, loopholes, and outright mistakes before its even made it to the floor for a vote. :lol:
"People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people." - V

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”