Search found 6 matches

by canvasbck
Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:29 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321
Replies: 73
Views: 13565

Re: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

Nothing in SB321 prevents them from gathering this information. It would be a stretch, but the confidentiality language in the CHL statutes (don't remember the cite off the top of my head) could possibly restrict companies from forcing CHL holders from identifying themselves.
by canvasbck
Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:19 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321
Replies: 73
Views: 13565

Re: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

He's referring to a chemical plant/refinery, so no one would be carrying under MPA..........unless the employer does not bar carrying under MPA.
by canvasbck
Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:15 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321
Replies: 73
Views: 13565

Re: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

Wisewr wrote:I have a CHL and work at a chemical plant here in the greater Houston area. The company has acknowledged the new bill and has sent out communications about it. Something they are asking, which I have not seen in the bill, is for CHLer's to "register" with the company. The form they sent out ask for all CHL information and to identify the guns you will be carrying.

I havn't seen anything like this in my reading of the bill, did I miss something? Is what their trying to do legal?
Several companies are doing this. This is a good one to turn in to NRA-ILA as they are forcing CHL holders to identify themselves and collecting records on CHL holders. The companies that I have spoken with that are requiring this form are planning on discipline for bringing a firearm on site that does not show up on your declaration form(s).

One good way to fight this, supply them with a list of 200-300 firearms that you may be carrying. Mix the ones you may actually bring on site with a list of firearms that you don't even own. If there is only room to list 1 or 2 firearms on their form, fill out everything except the firearm identification part and run off a bunch of copies fill in 1 firearm per form and turn in 200 forms, this should create a record keeping nightmare. These forms are for you to list any firearms that you "may" bring on site, just because you havn't bought a .50 BMG yet doesn't mean that your not going to buy one and bring it later. :reddevil
by canvasbck
Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:16 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321
Replies: 73
Views: 13565

Re: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

boba wrote:The law says what it says but there also doesn't seem to be any penalty for companies having conflicting policies unless/until they fire someone and the ex-employee sues.

It's like that DA in Florida prosecuting the guy who shot home invaders on his boat.
Actually, the NRA-ILA is planning on filing suit against companies that blatantly disregard the new law. They are asking people to report those companies to them.
by canvasbck
Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:31 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321
Replies: 73
Views: 13565

Re: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

Section F grants an exception to chemical plants and refineries, defined by the air permit, from the law. Those facilities operating under an air permit can prohibit employees from posessing a weapon ANYWHERE on the property under MPA.

CHL holders have an exemption from the exemption so long as their vehicle is outside of the secure area as defined by the three pronged test.

Broken down into bullet points:

1)At chemical plants and refineries, companies can prohibit anyone from posessing a weapon inside the secure area.

2) Those without a CHL can be barred from storing in a POV anywhere on the property.

3) Direct employees who posess a CHL may store firearms in a locked vehicle outside of the secure area.
by canvasbck
Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:36 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321
Replies: 73
Views: 13565

Re: Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

Stormwatcher wrote:Ok.... Are you say the parking lot must meet all three or will only one of these prevent a CHL holder from stowing at a plant. Because ........ At my plant.....
(i) that contains the physical plant ( my plant is further into the complex and secured entry is needed for access.
(ii) that is not open to the public; and ( our gates stay open 100 % of the time during daylight hours and anyone can enter and park. At night..... Mostly after10:00pm the gates are closed.... Cause the really can't monitor the lot well anytime and traffic drops to nothing. During the day....it's a free for all)
(iii) the ingress to which is constantly monitored by security personnel. ( this is debatable. We do have security... This security has view of the ingress but rarely if ever monitor who enters the parking lot during the day due to the sheer volume of traffic and the opposite is probably true at night. Anyone enters during the day and late at night no one enters.

What's your thoughts!
The parking lot must meet all three prongs ofthe three pronged test. If what you state above is accurate, then the parking lot can not be considered within the secure area of the plant. If there is no means (such as locked gates, badge access, ect.) preventing the public from parking in the parking lot, then it is not within the secure area. IANAL but I have worked closely with our company's general counsel in developing our firearms policy.

Return to “Passage of TX Senate Bill 321”