TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

gwashorn wrote:In my case, MPA lets me drive past the 30.06 sign if I understood one of the posts by Charles. There are only gun buster signs.

Doesn't the gunbuster sign prohibit you under the MPA? I think it does.

That is the point for the question. SB321 changes things. If SB321 does not cover my scenario then I can not enter. If it does, then I can and my CHL is not a part of the issue. If SB321 does not cover me, then the gun buster sign may be my limit for entry and the 30.06 limits me on the CHL. As for the question about the TSRA is that if a company is trying to work around the intent of the SB321 such as in this case, I suspect between now and the next legislative session that a test case will be found. I don't want to be one but I am looking for new employment so, push come to shove, I may force the issue. Again, ashame we can not get resolution on these niches of employment such as multi tenant. My gut feeling is this will have to be handle through how the owner/tenant contracts are written and handled. Then the application of the SB321 can be viewed for how it fits in the contract. I am not sure. Just want to make sense of it.

jimlongley wrote:This is a non-issue for me, but I have been following the thread with some interest.

One thing I have noted: This thread is concentrated on who gets to post 30.06, 30.05, etc; who gets to go past the posting; and whether the landlord's posting has any effect on the tenant and tenant's employees.

The greater portion of the arguments noted seem to be just the reverse of those offered in "gun show" postings where the government owns the building.

If the government owns the building then the tenant cannot post, is the usual argument, and yet here we have: The owner of the building cannot effectively post against the tenant's employees and visitors.

Quite a conundrum.

I agree we have two concurrent and interconnected issues. Can I drive past the sign and is my employment protected. In my case, MPA lets me drive past the 30.06 sign if I understood one of the posts by Charles. There are only gun buster signs. I just don't take it out of the car which I was not wanting to anyway. So I can park and no biggy (As far as I know). So I am left with "am in protected by SB321". May not matter if as noted above my company does not manage the parking lot, I am therefore not in my company's lot. So I do not need SB321 to protect me. It would be the same as parking at the Lowes parking lot next door.

I did some research on the legislature transcripts and found this very discussion happened on May 4th. I have copied it to a file for review. I did not seem to see a resolution to it and I was not sure how it affects the interpretations of SB321 based on the transcripts. Perhaps Charles can chime in on that.

And again I ask, has the TSRA made any progress on this issue? Alice Tripp asked to be informed of these problems. I may open a separate thread just on the status and updates of TSRA/NRA review of these issues.

Nope clearly stated above and the original start of this thread. Multi tenant building owned by a third party. Third party building owner is NOT my employer. My employer leasing office space and parking access. We can not park our cars in this buildings parking lots without one of their stickers on our windshield. The parking lot is managed and controlled by the building owner. Tenants lease and have assigned parking areas for upper persons and the rest of us grunts park in the rest of the lot. End deal, we lease parking privileges as a part of our building office lease. Therefore, been asked over and over, SB321 is between the employer and employee. However, the parking lot is not a direct owned lot by the employer. It is leased by the employer along with the office space. The building/parking lot owner posts the gun buster signs and the 30.06 signs. SB321 allows a CHL to pass the 30.06 and MPA does not care. Either way having it in the car is not illegal. I can not remove it from my car however as stated by Charles once I am past the 30.06 and that is fine. So, question once again, due to the WHO posted the sign problem, am I violating the 30.06 sign? I say not and Charles and stated before in the car is MPA. So that is fine regardless of SB321. Am I protected on job status because of SB321 that is the question.

Hence the real question what is the status if any by the TSRA to be gathering a response to these issues? I did not carry today. I plan on doing so next week. I do not wish to be a legal test case on the 30.06 part but I think I would be fine there. As for the keeping my job part, I really don't care. I have more options to work and can survive quite well.

Yes I understand the relationship. what is not clear is how the contract between the tenant, (my company) and the property owner who has posted the sign. Since they are providing the parking as a part of my company's office lease then it is my companies' parking lot. Therefore I "SHOULD" be covered by SB321. But still want confirmation.

chlag01 wrote:

koolaid wrote:He is asking whether or not 30.06 signs posted by the owner of a multi-tenant commercial office building apply to employees of companies leasing space at those buildings, I think.

Correct. In this case it is a multi-building office complex, one tenant per building.

So, thread back on original question, has anyone heard back from Alice Tripp and the TSRA or others with an answer as to where the line is drawn?

Well, I have been waiting for this to happen. My company leases office space in a building that has its own security personnel. The building provides parking for the tenants. The building is properly posted 30.06 and has been for a very long time. Today one of the parking lots is posted 30.06. Therefore the question is as an employee of the company that leases office space and therefore has parking lot privileges because of the building lease, am I protected under SB321 to go past the 30.06 sign in that lot? I have to have a sticker on my car window to allow me to park in these lots. Therefore I assume my permission to park in the lot is tied to my working relationship with my employer who leases in this building.

Therefore question is does SB321 protect me? Am I protected because of MPA and is the reason I can go past a 30.06 as noted in previous discussions of this thread? I am not removing my CCW weapon from the car. It is locked inside my car. I have no other readily available parking means to work at my office. I am allowed to park in this lot with direct permission of the building owner security management system. Our lease for our offices includes them providing parking which they manage and we obey their rules. Therefore, as an employer leasing the office and parking, I ask the question again, am I protected from the building owner 30.06 and no guns buster signs to park in this lot so I can go to my work office? Thank you.