Handgun in my car at work question
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Handgun in my car at work question
Company "C" owns a site where different companies own units within the complex (there are 5 different companies that own units within the site). Company"C" owns all of the physical land including parking lots. I was employeed by comany C for 10 years when company "D" bought two units that I work in so now I am employeed by company "D". Like I said, company C still owns the parking lots and the company I work for ("D") owns the equipment within the plant. Company C never had a problem with firearms in vehicles in the parking lot. Company D has said that we couldn't have ammunition in our vehicles ( a rifle round was found in the parking lot). Since I have a CHL, I leave my handgun in my truck while I'm at work. I do not ever recall in writing or verbally company D telling me I couldn't have a concealed firearm in my vehicle. If my employer caught me with one in my truck, could they really do anything since they do not own the parking lot? Since company C owns the parking lot and pays for security guards, if they asked to search my vehicle, can I refuse?
-
Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17788
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
[NOTE: This answer presumes we are not talking about federal government property or installations, or other governmental property where access with firearms, ammo or other weapons is addressed in a statute or code.]
These situations always raise two issues: 1) Can you be fired; and 2) can you be prosecuted for trespass in violation of TPC 30.06.
The answer to question one is easy, yes you can be fired. Texas is an “at will� State, meaning an employer can fire any employee who does not have an employment contract for any reason they wish, or no reason at all, with few exceptions. Two of the more common exceptions are: 1) employers can’t fire someone for refusing to do an illegal act; and 2) employers can’t fire an employee who is in a protected class (age, race, etc.). In order to terminate such employees, the employer must have cause.
It’s not possible to give a complete answer without seeing the lease documents. Issues such as use and control of the parking lot, in its entirely or by sections, limited access, etc. could well have a bearing on the authority to limit access to persons carrying ammo.
As a general statement, unless you have an employment contract specifying the terms under which you may be fired, or unless you are in a protected class of worker, then you can be fired for bringing ammo into the parking lot, even if Company D doesn’t have legal control of it. This is pure and simple “employment at will� law that is well accepted in Texas.
Whether you can be prosecuted is a different matter. Unless the person or company that controls the parking lot actually tells you that firearms are prohibited, or posts a TPC 30.06 compliant sign at all entrances, then you have not violated TPC 30.06. But, I don’t believe that a prohibition of ammo only would invoke TPC 30.06, so I could see someone arguing that a person with ammo could be prosecuted under TPC 30.05, but again, only the person/company that owns or controls the property (ex. lessee) would have the authority to set access limits to the parking lot.
You can refuse to allow a search of your vehicle by private security personnel.
Regards,
Chas.
These situations always raise two issues: 1) Can you be fired; and 2) can you be prosecuted for trespass in violation of TPC 30.06.
The answer to question one is easy, yes you can be fired. Texas is an “at will� State, meaning an employer can fire any employee who does not have an employment contract for any reason they wish, or no reason at all, with few exceptions. Two of the more common exceptions are: 1) employers can’t fire someone for refusing to do an illegal act; and 2) employers can’t fire an employee who is in a protected class (age, race, etc.). In order to terminate such employees, the employer must have cause.
It’s not possible to give a complete answer without seeing the lease documents. Issues such as use and control of the parking lot, in its entirely or by sections, limited access, etc. could well have a bearing on the authority to limit access to persons carrying ammo.
As a general statement, unless you have an employment contract specifying the terms under which you may be fired, or unless you are in a protected class of worker, then you can be fired for bringing ammo into the parking lot, even if Company D doesn’t have legal control of it. This is pure and simple “employment at will� law that is well accepted in Texas.
Whether you can be prosecuted is a different matter. Unless the person or company that controls the parking lot actually tells you that firearms are prohibited, or posts a TPC 30.06 compliant sign at all entrances, then you have not violated TPC 30.06. But, I don’t believe that a prohibition of ammo only would invoke TPC 30.06, so I could see someone arguing that a person with ammo could be prosecuted under TPC 30.05, but again, only the person/company that owns or controls the property (ex. lessee) would have the authority to set access limits to the parking lot.
You can refuse to allow a search of your vehicle by private security personnel.
Regards,
Chas.
Chas,
The following is from a post on another thread (Carry Issues) here on Texas CHL:
The following is from a post on another thread (Carry Issues) here on Texas CHL:
Do these situations vary from Lease to Lease?dejadoo
Junior Member
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 8
Location: Austin
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am planning a trip to the Ft. Worth Zoo in the next couple of months, so this thread caught my attention. After reading here I did a search on yahoo and found this:
http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/ ... worth_zoo/
This is taken directly from the link above:
The biggest confusion came from a simple question: “Does the city of Ft. Worth own the zoo?� The short answer is that while the city owns the land and the buildings, the zoo association leases it from the city and (according to their lawyer’s legal opinion) has the authority to post a 30.06 sign. This seems like an annoying loophole in the new law, but I suppose as a private entity holding claim to the land that the association is within its rights.
So I guess my question is is the Ft. Worth Zoo leagally posted if they have a 30.06 sign posted at the main entrance?
Back to top
KBCraig
Senior Member
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 330
Location: Texarkana
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't matter if someone else leases it; if the city owns the land and buildings, 30.06 doesn't apply.
Kevin
_________________
http://www.freestateproject.org
Back to top
-
Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17788
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
Some cities are taking the position that government owned land that is leased to a private entity can properly be posted with 30.06 signs. That is not correct. When a lessee "takes" property, they take it subject to any and all statutory and contractual restrictions. TPC 30.06(e) expressly states:
It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
It doesn't say one thing about leasing government property and "resurrecting" 30.06.
I know I say this a lot, but you don't want to be the test case.
Regards,
Chas.
It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
It doesn't say one thing about leasing government property and "resurrecting" 30.06.
I know I say this a lot, but you don't want to be the test case.
Regards,
Chas.