TexasCHLforum.com

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(1) authorize a person who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is prohibited by state or federal law; or
(2) apply to:
(A) 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;
(B) a school district;
(C) an open-enrollment charter school, as defined by Section 5.001, Education Code;
(D) a private school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code;
(E) property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or
(F) property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who stores a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees that is outside of a secured and restricted area:
(i) that contains the physical plant;
(ii) that is not open to the public; and
(iii) the ingress into which is constantly monitored by security personnel.

Mike1951 wrote:

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(1) authorize a person who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is prohibited by state or federal law; or
(2) apply to:
(A) 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;
(B) a school district;
(C) an open-enrollment charter school, as defined by Section 5.001, Education Code;
(D) a private school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code;
(E) property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or
(F) property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who stores a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees that is outside of a secured and restricted area:
(i) that contains the physical plant;
(ii) that is not open to the public; and
(iii) the ingress into which is constantly monitored by security personnel.

wgoforth wrote:Thank you, yes... I guess what I should have asked for was the Federal law prohibiting carry at "Critical infrastructure."

Bart wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Thank you, yes... I guess what I should have asked for was the Federal law prohibiting carry at "Critical infrastructure."

I hear a lot about that but I haven't seen the actual law passed by Congress, as opposed to some agency's rule.

rm9792 wrote:I do recal reading about infrastructure in Texas law. I was concerned about the Telecommunicatiosn switching facility part, as that is a big problem for me. Has that been removed?

C-dub wrote:

Keith B wrote:SB321 prohibits an employer, except a refinery or school, from making rules about you keeping a legally owned firearm in your locked vehicle. Your employer still has the right to prohibit you from removing the gun from the vehicle and carrying in the parking lot or building.

So, depending on exactly what the instructor was talking about, if he was referring to the building, then they were correct. If talking about IN your car in the parking lot, then they were incorrect.

, but unfortunately there was no penalty included for non-compliance. So, many companies, mine included, have not changed a thing in their policy and are just going to wait and see what if anything happens to a company that doesn't comply with the new law.

CoreyI35 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Keith B wrote:SB321 prohibits an employer, except a refinery or school, from making rules about you keeping a legally owned firearm in your locked vehicle. Your employer still has the right to prohibit you from removing the gun from the vehicle and carrying in the parking lot or building.

So, depending on exactly what the instructor was talking about, if he was referring to the building, then they were correct. If talking about IN your car in the parking lot, then they were incorrect.

, but unfortunately there was no penalty included for non-compliance. So, many companies, mine included, have not changed a thing in their policy and are just going to wait and see what if anything happens to a company that doesn't comply with the new law.

It was my understanding, from reading the bill, is that compliance with the law is what gave the employers immunity from liability. Thus, no compliance = liability.

CoreyI35 wrote: It was my understanding, from reading the bill, is that compliance with the law is what gave the employers immunity from liability. Thus, no compliance = liability.

goose wrote:

CoreyI35 wrote: It was my understanding, from reading the bill, is that compliance with the law is what gave the employers immunity from liability. Thus, no compliance = liability.

As an at will state, would there be liability? I suppose if the pink slip actually said something like "dismissed for firearm in car" you might have some case for something. It would be a rare HR department that would be that stupid. It is Texas; could a person win a case based on 2A discrimination? I would love to think so but I don't see it happening.

C-dub wrote: Due to the parking lot law I think it would be very easy to win a case on those grounds. I would be surprised if a company did not put in a person's file a reason why they were terminated. My company, in order to protect themselves from discrimination lawsuits that we're more familiar with, is meticulous about documenting the reason why they terminate someone. It usually takes a verbal warning, written warning, and a final written warning before someone can be terminated. Unless the infraction is really egregious it seems like it is sometimes harder to get rid of someone at my company than the USPS.