Texas senate OKs bill allowing guns, ammo in cars at work

[Coelus]

State may loosen laws on storing guns
Schools not covered in bill passed by Senate
By DAVID SALEH RAUF
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
March 26, 2009, 12:01AM



AUSTIN — Texans would be allowed to stow their guns and ammo inside their locked cars or trucks while at work and parked on employer property under a controversial bill passed Wednesday by the state Senate.

The Senate voted 31-0 to prohibit employers from enforcing restrictions against employees possessing a legally owned handgun or ammunition inside a locked vehicle while in a company parking lot. Firearms and ammo must be stored out of sight.

“Here in Texas people like their firearms and … if they want to bring them to the workplace they are going to do it whether there’s an employee policy against it or not,” said state Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, the measure’s author. “This is designed to stop employers from punishing employees who legally bring weapons to work .”

Supporters say employer rules banning guns in a company parking lot infringe on their Second Amendment right and their ability to protect themselves as they travel to and from work.

Opponents, among them a number of influential business groups, argue the bill is an affront to an employer’s property rights and are wary of potential gun violence as a growing number of Texans lose their jobs.

“We believe it’s a basic property right that should be preserved,” said Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business. “Someone who is terminated or laid off can go to a parking lot and in a matter of seconds be back with a weapon and it could be a disaster as a result of this legislation.”

Under the bill, employers would not be liable in most cases if an episode of workplace violence with a gun were to occur.

Businesses and employers still have the right to prohibit workers from bringing a firearm into an office building or into fenced parking lots where access is restricted.
Third time for bill

The issue — along with a separate proposal to let students and faculty with a concealed handgun license carry on campus — is a top priority for gun-lobby groups this session. This is the third consecutive session lawmakers will seek to pass the parking lot measure.

“This impacts public safety,” said Alice Tripp, legislative director for the Texas State Rifle Association. “There are people who aren’t able to practice this form of self-defense during their daily lives going to and from work.”

The bill, which exempts schools, now heads to the House, where in 2007 it died.

State Rep. Stephen Frost, D-New Boston and vice chairman of the House Public Safety Committee, is carrying an identical measure.

An amendment to the bill by Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, exempts workplaces where a contract prohibits weapons, such as oil and gas drilling sites situated on private property.

[Concisus Cognatus]

Wonder if this may cause mangers to think twice about the way they talk to some workers?

[Coelus]

I'm just thinking that when I work nights and stop for gas at 2am on the way home I'll thank Sen. Hegar.

[kenw]

It's a sticky wicket for sure. It highlights the issues of individual rights and ultimate property owner rights. I can see both sides and think each has validity. It does open a real legal can of worms for property owners: when something happens on their property and a victim's lawyer wants to go for the deep pockets.

[johnastovall]

Simple fix you can't sue the property owner for actions taken by a CHL holder. Secondly we need legistation that a CHL Holder who acts within the scope of deadly force laws and neither no-billed or convicted can not be sued in civil court.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Simple fix you can't sue the property owner for actions taken by a CHL holder. Secondly we need legistation that a CHL Holder who acts within the scope of deadly force laws and neither no-billed or convicted can not be sued in civil court.

and good luck with that......

[Coelus]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Simple fix you can't sue the property owner for actions taken by a CHL holder. Secondly we need legistation that a CHL Holder who acts within the scope of deadly force laws and neither no-billed or convicted can not be sued in civil court.

That's too simple for politics.
Did you mean "no billed or not convicted"?

Coelus added 15 Minutes and 40 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Just to add to the confusion. How can a business owner deny employees the right to carry, but can't enforce the same rules on customers? (Referring to parking lots and not buildings; whose rules are well established.) Even a 51% rule business doesn't extend to the parking lot.

I can understand a business making a case if they have a controlled parking environment, but not one that is open to the public. I also think controlled parking is more than just a sign that says employee parking only, or a fenced area that is still open to the street. But that still doesn't help CHL holders in their travels too and from work. Your employer can't control where you go in your off time, and shouldn't effect your CHL privileges during that time either.

[sldi-rooster]

great, now if truckers could carry guns, we might make it a more even battleground.

[Howard Barlow]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Simple fix you can't sue the property owner for actions taken by a CHL holder. Secondly we need legistation that a CHL Holder who acts within the scope of deadly force laws and neither no-billed or convicted can not be sued in civil court.

Even cops don't have that protection. You are responsible for where your bullet stops, and everwhere it goes until it does.

If memory serves, I think I remember seeing in Kentucky's code that protection is afforded. Anybody know for sure?

[ka5txl]

I foresee a new market for lock boxes inside vehicle to store said weapons in the vehicle

[David_3]

Originally Posted by Coelus

Just to add to the confusion. How can a business owner deny employees the right to carry, but can't enforce the same rules on customers? (Referring to parking lots and not buildings; whose rules are well established.)

Actually, I think they can enforce "no carry" to customers in private parking lots. PC 30.06 applies to "property", and not just a "premises". Of course, applying the 30.06 rule is completely up to the discretion of the property owner. The legal mumbo-jumbo use of different terms, can definitely confuse the issue.

Even a 51% rule business doesn't extend to the parking lot.

The 51% rule falls under PC 46.035, which is "Unlawful carrying of handgun by license holder". In this section of the Penal Code, the term "premises" (meaning building, or portion of a building) is typically used, instead of the term "property". This law is always in place, and and it's application is not up to the discretion of the property owner.

[Coelus]

Actually, I think they can enforce "no carry" to customers in private parking lots. PC 30.06 applies to "property", and not just a "premises". Of course, applying the 30.06 rule is completely up to the discretion of the property owner. The legal mumbo-jumbo use of different terms, can definitely confuse the issue.

Would the business have to place it's signage on the street so you can see it before entering the parking lot to be in compliance with 30.06?

[David_3]

Originally Posted by Coelus

Would the business have to place it's signage on the street so you can see it before entering the parking lot to be in compliance with 30.06?

Nope. At least, not the way I read it. Technically speaking, they don't even have to put a 30.06 sign at the entrance of the premises. However, putting a sign at the entrance to the parking lot (or premises) would certainly make the most sense.

Lets take a closer look:

Sec. 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.

This first part of the 30.06 rule, says that a CHL holder must receive oral or written (proper 30.06 sign) notice that they are not allowed to possess a handgun on the property. If a CHL holder receives "notice" and then enters or remains on the property, they are in violation of the trespass law.

But, there is nothing in the wording, that states the oral or written notice must be at the entrance of the property. It simply says:

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

So the way I read it, the 30.06 sign just has to be displayed in a conspicuous manner, AND could actually be inside the premises, such as behind the counter of a store. In which case, it would be a violation to remain on the property once the CHL holder sees the sign.


This new bill may open up a can of worms. It seems to me, it is simply trying to prevent the employer from establishing a "no guns" policy for the employees. But I don't see anything in this Bill, that prevents the employer from exercising their right to put a 30.06 sign on their property. So where does that leave things? I don't know. But I suspect it may end up in a court battle at some point in the future. We'll see.....


Now for the disclaimer: I could be totally wrong about all of this, so if anyone really wants to know the legal answers to these questions, please consult an attorney.

[toverman]

Originally Posted by ka5txl

I foresee a new market for lock boxes inside vehicle to store said weapons in the vehicle

Glove box? Check.

Map pocket? Check.

Cupholders? Check.

Cell phone holder? Check.

iPod holder? Check.

Under-seat gun safe? Check.

[JP171]

Originally Posted by David_3

Nope. At least, not the way I read it. Technically speaking, they don't even have to put a 30.06 sign at the entrance of the premises. However, putting a sign at the entrance to the parking lot (or premises) would certainly make the most sense.

Lets take a closer look:



This first part of the 30.06 rule, says that a CHL holder must receive oral or written (proper 30.06 sign) notice that they are not allowed to possess a handgun on the property. If a CHL holder receives "notice" and then enters or remains on the property, they are in violation of the trespass law.

But, there is nothing in the wording, that states the oral or written notice must be at the entrance of the property. It simply says:



So the way I read it, the 30.06 sign just has to be displayed in a conspicuous manner, AND could actually be inside the premises, such as behind the counter of a store. In which case, it would be a violation to remain on the property once the CHL holder sees the sign.


This new bill may open up a can of worms. It seems to me, it is simply trying to prevent the employer from establishing a "no guns" policy for the employees. But I don't see anything in this Bill, that prevents the employer from exercising their right to put a 30.06 sign on their property. So where does that leave things? I don't know. But I suspect it may end up in a court battle at some point in the future. We'll see.....


Now for the disclaimer: I could be totally wrong about all of this, so if anyone really wants to know the legal answers to these questions, please consult an attorney.

you are incorrect, it must be displayed at the entrance of a parking lot in order for the trespass by a CHL holder, to NOT be able to carry in a parking lot or leave it in a vehicle, it also must be displayed in a manner that you will see it before entering the premisis due to that if its not displayed before you enter the premisis it becomes illegal entrapment. however let me throw this in there it under the law IS NOT ILLEGAL to have a weapon in a vehicle at ANY time and PLACE irregardless of the 30.06 paragraph if it is NOT immediatley accessable (ie in the trunk or locked tool box) it only applies to on or about your person. now the new law does NOT stop an employer from posting the 30.06 at the entrance to the employee parking area, the new law only makes the employee the same as john doe off the streets when he enters your property/premisis. the main problem now is that an employer can terminate your employment just because you bring a weapon to the workplace and leave it in your car, the employer can't do squat to the guy who drives up and parks who is not an employee(even if he's a previous employee) the only thing that an owner/proprieter can do is ask you to leave but cannot press trespassing charges if the trespassing is only because of the weapon. a CHL holder may infact carry his weapon onto the "property" of a school but may not enter the building or fenced area of the school