Page 13 of 15
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 8:40 pm
by Skiprr
This is the issue that got my vote as the number one priority this legislative session.
Governor Perry will sign this, and a half-million CHL holders will thank him and all the legislators who made this happen.
And guess what? This “little interest group” was an active, instrumental part of the equation. Scores of us repeatedly called and faxed and emailed our Texas legislators.
We made a difference!
Thanks to all of you.
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 7:09 am
by Keith B
Skiprr wrote:This is the issue that got my vote as the number one priority this legislative session.
Governor Perry will sign this, and a half-million CHL holders will thank him and all the legislators who made this happen.
And guess what? This “little interest group” was an active, instrumental part of the equation. Scores of us repeatedly called and faxed and emailed our Texas legislators.
We made a difference!
Thanks to all of you.
And not only CHL holders, but anyone who carries under the MPA or can legally own the firearm!!!
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 11:06 am
by rp_photo
Texaspublican wrote:I called every committee member today and also wrote them a letter. This bill infringes on Private Property Ownership. As a business owner, I find this kind of legislation offensive. I have no issues with guns inside of vehicles while on my property, but I have a serious issue with people who write such stupidity as this. Any bill that forces a private property owner to do something against their wishes is a Socialist Bill...
This bill is as good as dead! Texas business will not allow this to happen. The assumption that Legislative Committee will kill this bill makes me laugh. This bill has been thrown in the trash three times and it keeps comming back.
Get a clue! Texans do not want law's that infirnge on private property ownership!
IMHO, one's vehicle is a "bubble" of their own private property which displaces the land or building owner's property upon which it rests.
The 2007 law changes that treat vehicles as private property as far as non-CHL carry support my opinion, and SB321 merely makes it consistent.
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 11:29 am
by rp_photo
Texaspublican wrote:Any bill that forces a private property owner to do something against their wishes is a Socialist Bill...
As I see it, only the owner of "private private" property (i.e. a personal residence) deserves one-sided rights. When the property owner's enterprise depends on the presence of others (i.e. a retail establishment, workplace, entertainment venue, etc.) the rights of the owner and authorized visitors need to be balanced, and allowing employees to keep guns in their vehicles at work is an ideal example of such balance.
Although I'm new to guns and CHL, I've been an avid photographer for 6 years, usually working outdoors on public or private property. My balanced rights opinion was formed out of that experience, and I can honestly say that it's helped me understand issues we face here much better.
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 11:53 am
by sherlock7
Once this bill is signed by Gov. Perry, Does it mean " Only those who have a CHL can carry in our employers parking lot " or am I to understand it also allows ALL employees to carry a weapon in their locked car?
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 12:00 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
sherlock7 wrote:Once this bill is signed by Gov. Perry, Does it mean " Only those who have a CHL can carry in our employers parking lot " or am I to understand it also allows ALL employees to carry a weapon in their locked car?
All employees who lawfully possess firearms and/or ammo, unless they work at a chemical manufacturing plant or a refinery. In those two locations, you must have a CHL to come within the protection of SB321.
Chas.
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 12:30 pm
by sherlock7
Charles, Thanks. One more question if I may. My wife, who does NOT have a CHL, drives to work with a handgun locked in her car. Parks in the employee parking lot in downtown Dallas. Is she legal under this new law? Just trying to be clear on this bill.
Please keep up the great work you are doing!
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 12:33 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
sherlock7 wrote:Charles, Thanks. One more question if I may. My wife, who does NOT have a CHL, drives to work with a handgun locked in her car. Parks in the employee parking lot in downtown Dallas. Is she legal under this new law? Just trying to be clear on this bill.
Please keep up the great work you are doing!
She is not violating TPC §46.02, but if her employer has a "no guns" policy, then the new parking lot bill won't protect her until Sept. 1st.
Chas.
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 1:03 pm
by rp_photo
Charles L. Cotton wrote:All employees who lawfully possess firearms and/or ammo, unless they work at a chemical manufacturing plant or a refinery. In those two locations, you must have a CHL to come within the protection of SB321.
Chas.
I'm assuming that only includes lots and areas outside of the main gates.
I normally work in an office environment, but often visit area refineries and plants. In some I have have drive-in privledge, but at others I must park in visitor lots outside security.
I do have a CHL and am curious how this would all apply to me.
I wonder if plants can use MARSEC and terror threat levels to negate the new law?
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 1:38 pm
by The Annoyed Man
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texaspublican wrote:I called every committee member today and also wrote them a letter. This bill infringes on Private Property Ownership. As a business owner, I find this kind of legislation offensive. I have no issues with guns inside of vehicles while on my property, but I have a serious issue with people who write such stupidity as this. Any bill that forces a private property owner to do something against their wishes is a Socialist Bill...
This bill is as good as dead! Texas business will not allow this to happen. The assumption that Legislative Committee will kill this bill makes me laugh. This bill has been thrown in the trash three times and it keeps comming back.
Get a clue! Texans do not want law's that infirnge on private property ownership!
Mr. McCrary, how do you like your crow served -- rare or well done?
Chas.
Is Texaspublican Mr. McCary, AKA MR. REDENCK? A) that's truly funny; and B) no wonder he wrote his OC bill in a manner to trash 30.06 for CHLs.
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 1:55 pm
by Jasonw560
The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texaspublican wrote:I called every committee member today and also wrote them a letter. This bill infringes on Private Property Ownership. As a business owner, I find this kind of legislation offensive. I have no issues with guns inside of vehicles while on my property, but I have a serious issue with people who write such stupidity as this. Any bill that forces a private property owner to do something against their wishes is a Socialist Bill...
This bill is as good as dead! Texas business will not allow this to happen. The assumption that Legislative Committee will kill this bill makes me laugh. This bill has been thrown in the trash three times and it keeps comming back.
Get a clue! Texans do not want law's that infirnge on private property ownership!
Mr. McCrary, how do you like your crow served -- rare or well done?
Chas.
Is Texaspublican Mr. McCary, AKA MR. REDENCK? A) that's truly funny; and B) no wonder he wrote his OC bill in a manner to trash 30.06 for CHLs.
He might be FISHERMAN on Lone Star Legal Defense, too.
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 5:01 pm
by OldSchool
PLEASE tell me it's NOT one of the "Rednecks" on TGT!!
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 5:42 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
OldSchool wrote:PLEASE tell me it's NOT one of the "Rednecks" on TGT!!
It is MR REDNECK who used to post on TexasGunTalk until he was banned there as well.
Chas.
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 6:10 pm
by canvasbck
rp_photo wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:All employees who lawfully possess firearms and/or ammo, unless they work at a chemical manufacturing plant or a refinery. In those two locations, you must have a CHL to come within the protection of SB321.
Chas.
I'm assuming that only includes lots and areas outside of the main gates.
I normally work in an office environment, but often visit area refineries and plants. In some I have have drive-in privledge, but at others I must park in visitor lots outside security.
I do have a CHL and am curious how this would all apply to me.
I wonder if plants can use MARSEC and terror threat levels to negate the new law?
IMHO, if your not an employee of the facility owner, you are not protected by SB 321, it doesn't cover contractors or visitors, only direct employees.
Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 6:13 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
canvasbck wrote:rp_photo wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:All employees who lawfully possess firearms and/or ammo, unless they work at a chemical manufacturing plant or a refinery. In those two locations, you must have a CHL to come within the protection of SB321.
Chas.
I'm assuming that only includes lots and areas outside of the main gates.
I normally work in an office environment, but often visit area refineries and plants. In some I have have drive-in privledge, but at others I must park in visitor lots outside security.
I do have a CHL and am curious how this would all apply to me.
I wonder if plants can use MARSEC and terror threat levels to negate the new law?
IMHO, if your not an employee of the facility owner, you are not protected by SB 321, it doesn't cover contractors or visitors, only direct employees.
Correct. We considered trying to add that in conference committee, but the overall opinion was that was so far "out of bounds" it might kill the bill. (Come on 2013.)
Chas.