TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:Short answer, leave it in the truck and don't worry about it.

Same as the post office and USACE parks.

Colonel Angus wrote: I believe a land owner has the right to prohibit firearms on their property regardless of easements.

An easement includes a number of the rights... so depending on what's conveyed in the document as to control and access, that may or may not be accurate.

Pew Pew wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Short answer, leave it in the truck and don't worry about it.

Same as the post office and USACE parks.

Post Office I tend to agree as I have never seen Postal property posted against leaving gun in the car. Technically could be considered a federal infraction if you did but I’m not seeing the US attorney pushing it even if you were discovered. USACE parks I have seen posted and I could see you getting a ticket for an infraction, though I don’t think it it’s a misdemeanor.

ScottDLS wrote:
Post Office I tend to agree as I have never seen Postal property posted against leaving gun in the car. Technically could be considered a federal infraction if you did but I’m not seeing the US attorney pushing it even if you were discovered. USACE parks I have seen posted and I could see you getting a ticket for an infraction, though I don’t think it it’s a misdemeanor.

Trump could fix this with a stroke of a pen and a phone. He hasn't.

twomillenium wrote:

WTR wrote:

twomillenium wrote:Tell your "friend" to read his LTC 16 that he received in his class that was taken a couple of months ago.

My " friend" does not have a LTC.

Then show him how to download it. Then he just might get an LTC. If not, your "friend" would have a better understanding of the laws concerning carry. Sounds as if they might be interested, plant the seed and reap the harvest.

Actually he had a Texas CHL. The CHL was allowed to expire while he was in Calfornia taking care of family. Since he has to travel such long distances for work, I thought the MVP might cover him. However , I wanted to get the opinions of the forum members.

Ok, then the "friend" should research the laws of the different states he goes through and the OP was about Texas law. This thread has evolved greatly from the original question.

twomillenium wrote:Ok, then the "friend" should research the laws of the different states he goes through and the OP was about Texas law. This thread has evolved greatly from the original question.

This thread is about travel within TX. Out here in far West Texas he may need to travel more than 100 miles to reach a project. He would like to travel those distances with a firearm encase of a break down. We both were a bit confused due to the amount of parties involved , lack of " parking lot" and how the statute would apply. My take..... carry, conceal and shut up...... But it is not my job that might be on the line. I thought this would be the place to ask for clarification.

gtolbert09 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

gtolbert09 wrote:One thing to keep in mind. If your employer prohibits firearms as company policy, you could be terminated for having it in your car while at work. Remember Texas is an at will employment state and violating company policy can lead to termination.

Actually, as long as it stays in the car in the designated parking lot, they can't.

My employer bans firearms on their property including the parking lots\garages. We have to read and sign an Employee code of conduct every year that states no firearms on the property. We can be terminated if they find out you have a firearm in you vehicle on their property. Btw, the HQ is in NY.

If you are ever looking to get a new job, you may want to casually mention to your employer that you have a gun in your car, in their parking lot. That way, you will get a nice severance package in the form of a wrongful termination settlement / judgment.

I thought the Farmer Brown exception was part of parking lot protection.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

gtolbert09 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

gtolbert09 wrote:One thing to keep in mind. If your employer prohibits firearms as company policy, you could be terminated for having it in your car while at work. Remember Texas is an at will employment state and violating company policy can lead to termination.

Actually, as long as it stays in the car in the designated parking lot, they can't.

My employer bans firearms on their property including the parking lots\garages. We have to read and sign an Employee code of conduct every year that states no firearms on the property. We can be terminated if they find out you have a firearm in you vehicle on their property. Btw, the HQ is in NY.

If you are ever looking to get a new job, you may want to casually mention to your employer that you have a gun in your car, in their parking lot. That way, you will get a nice severance package in the form of a wrongful termination settlement / judgment.

I was thinking the same thing! They can't keep you from carrying a firearm in your car. that's like them telling you you cant keep a gun in your house... watch me!

I don't think severance package would be very good when they terminated you because they didn't like the way you laugh. They could say, "We don't need to watch people that don't work here".

Liberty wrote:... I doubt if the easement or utility right of way is posted 30.06/07 anyway. ...

Attached is an Imgur link to a blurry pic of an easement in the Clear Lake area. The bright white object just left of photo center is a pipeline access point (where the pipeline segment extends above ground, has valves, flanges, etc.). It is surrounded by a chain link fence. Not visible on this photo, but clearly visible in person, are conforming 30.06/07 signs on the chain link fence.

Question: Is the owner and/or easement holder attempting to convey restriction just inside the chain link fence, or inside the entire easement? There are no other structures or points where such signs could be posted if the intent was to declare for the easement itself.

Interblog wrote:

Liberty wrote:... I doubt if the easement or utility right of way is posted 30.06/07 anyway. ...

Attached is an Imgur link to a blurry pic of an easement in the Clear Lake area. The bright white object just left of photo center is a pipeline access point (where the pipeline segment extends above ground, has valves, flanges, etc.). It is surrounded by a chain link fence. Not visible on this photo, but clearly visible in person, are conforming 30.06/07 signs on the chain link fence.

Question: Is the owner and/or easement holder attempting to convey restriction just inside the chain link fence, or inside the entire easement? There are no other structures or points where such signs could be posted if the intent was to declare for the easement itself.

IANAL but i'd say just the fence because that's where it's located.

twomillenium wrote:I don't think severance package would be very good when they terminated you because they didn't like the way you laugh. They could say, "We don't need to watch people that don't work here".

They could say that. But I'm guessing they don't even know that it is illegal to fire someone for a violation of their "no guns in the parking lot" policy. So you may well be able to get an open admission of the reason for the firing in writing (e-mail, or even better, a written "warning"). But even if you can't get that, you would have their policy, in writing, that probably says something like "violation of this policy will lead to discipline up to and including termination." You may also have a record of glowing performance evaluations, with no prior mention of a problem with your "laughter" or anything else.

Basically, you would have to prove this case just like you prove any other wrongful termination case. The difference is that most employers know they are not supposed to fire someone just because they are black, or a woman, and as a result written admissions of the real termination reason would be more rare. And even with that, people win wrongful termination cases all the time.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

twomillenium wrote:I don't think severance package would be very good when they terminated you because they didn't like the way you laugh. They could say, "We don't need to watch people that don't work here".

They could say that. But I'm guessing they don't even know that it is illegal to fire someone for a violation of their "no guns in the parking lot" policy. So you may well be able to get an open admission of the reason for the firing in writing (e-mail, or even better, a written "warning"). But even if you can't get that, you would have their policy, in writing, that probably says something like "violation of this policy will lead to discipline up to and including termination." You may also have a record of glowing performance evaluations, with no prior mention of a problem with your "laughter" or anything else.

Basically, you would have to prove this case just like you prove any other wrongful termination case. The difference is that most employers know they are not supposed to fire someone just because they are black, or a woman, and as a result written admissions of the real termination reason would be more rare. And even with that, people win wrongful termination cases all the time.

They lose them, as well and more often find that they were terminated for just cause.