TexasCHLforum.com

What about private property leased from a private owenr? Who has the control on the property and makes the rules on carry/no-carry?

For example, my company has a no guns on company property or in vehicles in the parking lot policy, but the property is leased. Do they have the legal rights to prohibit it if the actually property owner doesn't forbid it? If there are no 30.06 signs, can they still prohibit employees, but allow others?

It depends upon the terms of the lease. IMHO, if the lessee has the right to prohibit entry to the property generally, they have the right to post 30.06.

I've said this many times, if you're caught, and if they call the police, you're probably going to be arrested. Cops aren't lawyers and don't debate fine points of the law on the scene.

Then, if you need a lawyer to argue that the property wasn't properly posted, you're out thousands of dollars.

Of course, since you're an employee, you are also going to be out of a job.

- Jim

Keith B wrote:What about private property leased from a private owenr? Who has the control on the property and makes the rules on carry/no-carry?

For example, my company has a no guns on company property or in vehicles in the parking lot policy, but the property is leased. Do they have the legal rights to prohibit it if the actually property owner doesn't forbid it? If there are no 30.06 signs, can they still prohibit employees, but allow others?

I think that it does not matter who owns the property since you are an employee. They can still prohibit you from carrying without a 30.06 sign and let others carry. They can not have you arrested if you do, unless the wording in the company policy is 30.06 wording, you would just out of a job.

Keith B wrote:What about private property leased from a private owenr? Who has the control on the property and makes the rules on carry/no-carry?

For example, my company has a no guns on company property or in vehicles in the parking lot policy, but the property is leased. Do they have the legal rights to prohibit it if the actually property owner doesn't forbid it? If there are no 30.06 signs, can they still prohibit employees, but allow others?

I would say the leasee has the right to post it 30.06 if they want to unless there is a specific provision in the lease that says they can't.

Also, they can prohibit employees from carrying (on premesis OR property) or storing firearms (in their vehicles) with or without posting 30.06. In the absence of 30.06, the employee can be fired for violating the policy but not prosecuted (for trespass). If 30.06 compliant notification had been issued, they could also prosecute if they wanted to.

IANAL, but that's my opinion.

They can fire you any time for no reason. If you have not been given notice with compliant 30.06 or verbal notice then you can legally carry. You might still get arrested and have to pay a lawyer. I had rather do so than be unarmed when I needed to defend myself or another innocent. That is my opinion.

Keith B wrote:For example, my company has a no guns on company property or in vehicles in the parking lot policy, but the property is leased. Do they have the legal rights to prohibit it if the actually property owner doesn't forbid it? If there are no 30.06 signs, can they still prohibit employees, but allow others?

Does your company "apparent authority to act for the owner"?




§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to
act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
communication.

I fall into this subject. I manage a sand & gravel mining operation, roughly 725 acres. We pay royalties to the land owner. Although my company has a no gun policy in place & the land owner has signs everywhere along the property boundaries stating no hunting, no weapons, etc, It is written in our lease that I can carry while on site, in vehicle or on my person. The draw back hit me last Friday, I forgot to disarm when I went to an office meeting, but concealed is concealed!

Thanks for the replies. You all have confirmed what I thought. The tenant pretty much has control over what goes on there. Much like a in an apartment, you are the resident, so you make the rules as long as it doesn't go 100% against the landlords rules.

Thanks again for the input!

So you drive onto the propery that is under the control of the company that you work for. You disarm in the vehicle leaving it in the car in a secure location, i.e. lock box or place it in a shoe bag or similiar and lock it in the trunk. No one sees you doing this and no one is aware that you have said firearm. You company requests a search of your vehicle and you denie them access to your property. I see nothing more than you needing a new job, not a lawyer.

familyman wrote:So you drive onto the propery that is under the control of the company that you work for. You disarm in the vehicle leaving it in the car in a secure location, i.e. lock box or place it in a shoe bag or similiar and lock it in the trunk. No one sees you doing this and no one is aware that you have said firearm. You company requests a search of your vehicle and you denie them access to your property. I see nothing more than you needing a new job, not a lawyer.

Yeah, but that 'needing a new job' part is the kicker!! I would rather be arrested than fired!!!!

After 29 years, I only need about 9 months to be 'golden' for my retirement benefits.

Keith B wrote: Yeah, but that 'needing a new job' part is the kicker!! I would rather be arrested than fired!!!!

Which do you think is harder?

Finding a new job you resigned from for personal reasons,

or

Finding a new job you were fired from because you brought firearm to work in violation of company policy and were arrested and now convicted of?

(jobs making license plates do not count)

I think in most cases the company would encourage you to quit rather than firing you. I am aware of many cases where that happened, even though the employee could have been fired for cause and prosecuted for theft.

- Jim

I am going to do everything so NEITHER of those things happen.

Our company leases from a management company. We are not the only tenants in the building (we occupy about 2/3 of the building). Because of this and the fact that all maintenance and etc are done through the Property Management company I would assume that we do NOT have any authority to post 30.06 signs (and in fact none are posted).

That being said we do have a policy in our employee hand book forbidding the licensed or unlicensed carrying of firearms. It does not have the language specified in 30.06.

“FIREARMS AND WEAPONS
The Criminal Trespass Laws prohibit entry on property leased by the bank with a weapon without consent when notices are provided stating that weapons are strictly prohibited. Weapons are strictly prohibited on bank premises, and violation of this practice will subject the employee to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment, as well as possible criminal prosecution. No concealed handguns, even if a license to carry one has been issued, are allowed on bank property.
A weapon shall include handguns as well as all firearms, illegal knives, clubs or other prohibited weapons as defined by law.�

According to 30.05, is this notice good enough to prosecute violators that do not have a CHL? I believe 30.06 exempts CHL from prosecution based on this language mostly because CHL are subject the specified language in 30.06. Is my understanding correct, when I say that as a CHL holder I can be fired based on the language above but not criminally prosecuted based on the language above? If the policy specifically used the 30.06 language then as a CHL holder I am subject to both termination and prosecution…correct?


I also think a lawyer could pick this apart as it talks about two different things…one leased property at the beginning and then just plain property. Also the word property is not defined. A few good things on our side; the parking lot is shared with other tenants and open to the public so it can not (or at least should not) be considered bank property. The other good thing is that two of the top three guys have CHLs. The mind set they share is that the parking lot/vehicle is ok to carry in but the building itself is off limits.

TX_Jim wrote:Our company leases from a management company. We are not the only tenants in the building (we occupy about 2/3 of the building). Because of this and the fact that all maintenance and etc are done through the Property Management company I would assume that we do NOT have any authority to post 30.06 signs (and in fact none are posted).

That being said we do have a policy in our employee hand book forbidding the licensed or unlicensed carrying of firearms. It does not have the language specified in 30.06.

“FIREARMS AND WEAPONS
The Criminal Trespass Laws prohibit entry on property leased by the bank with a weapon without consent when notices are provided stating that weapons are strictly prohibited. Weapons are strictly prohibited on bank premises, and violation of this practice will subject the employee to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment, as well as possible criminal prosecution. No concealed handguns, even if a license to carry one has been issued, are allowed on bank property.
A weapon shall include handguns as well as all firearms, illegal knives, clubs or other prohibited weapons as defined by law.�

According to 30.05, is this notice good enough to prosecute violators that do not have a CHL? I believe 30.06 exempts CHL from prosecution based on this language mostly because CHL are subject the specified language in 30.06. Is my understanding correct, when I say that as a CHL holder I can be fired based on the language above but not criminally prosecuted based on the language above? If the policy specifically used the 30.06 language then as a CHL holder I am subject to both termination and prosecution…correct?


I also think a lawyer could pick this apart as it talks about two different things…one leased property at the beginning and then just plain property. Also the word property is not defined. A few good things on our side; the parking lot is shared with other tenants and open to the public so it can not (or at least should not) be considered bank property. The other good thing is that two of the top three guys have CHLs. The mind set they share is that the parking lot/vehicle is ok to carry in but the building itself is off limits.

I would think you could post a 30.06 on the portions you actually lease.

I highlighted the red part because LEOs are "licensed". I guess they are trying to ban LEOs from the bank too.

Handbook is meaningless for a CHL, and I doubt it is easily enforceable as law for a non-CHL. I doubt non-employees see the handbook so how would they know the rules? They would have to be caught, confronted, and not leave to get arrested I would think.

Also, I am unaware of any tresspassing case where a person was not offered the opportunity to leave a public place first, other than actually breaking into a place when it was not open to the public.