TexasCHLforum.com

rp_photo

MedicMan218 wrote:
rp_photo wrote:
causeican wrote:Now all we have to do is wait until September 1st.
I have a feeling we're not all going to wait
you have been waiting? lol

rp_photo

causeican wrote:Now all we have to do is wait until September 1st.

I have a feeling we're not all going to wait

rp_photo

canvasbck wrote:Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to it as a safety video. It's an orientation video. It describes items that are prohibited from inside the secure area such as firearms, drugs, alcohol, ect.

My favorites are "No sleeping" and "No horseplay", when that's just about all the operators do when things are running smooth

rp_photo

canvasbck wrote:
rp_photo wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:IMHO, if your not an employee of the facility owner, you are not protected by SB 321, it doesn't cover contractors or visitors, only direct employees.

In which case you should be OK if there isn't a 30.06.

rp_photo

Charles L. Cotton wrote:All employees who lawfully possess firearms and/or ammo, unless they work at a chemical manufacturing plant or a refinery. In those two locations, you must have a CHL to come within the protection of SB321.

Chas.

I'm assuming that only includes lots and areas outside of the main gates.

I normally work in an office environment, but often visit area refineries and plants. In some I have have drive-in privledge, but at others I must park in visitor lots outside security.

I do have a CHL and am curious how this would all apply to me.

I wonder if plants can use MARSEC and terror threat levels to negate the new law?

rp_photo

Texaspublican wrote:Any bill that forces a private property owner to do something against their wishes is a Socialist Bill...

As I see it, only the owner of "private private" property (i.e. a personal residence) deserves one-sided rights. When the property owner's enterprise depends on the presence of others (i.e. a retail establishment, workplace, entertainment venue, etc.) the rights of the owner and authorized visitors need to be balanced, and allowing employees to keep guns in their vehicles at work is an ideal example of such balance.

Although I'm new to guns and CHL, I've been an avid photographer for 6 years, usually working outdoors on public or private property. My balanced rights opinion was formed out of that experience, and I can honestly say that it's helped me understand issues we face here much better.

rp_photo

Texaspublican wrote:I called every committee member today and also wrote them a letter. This bill infringes on Private Property Ownership. As a business owner, I find this kind of legislation offensive. I have no issues with guns inside of vehicles while on my property, but I have a serious issue with people who write such stupidity as this. Any bill that forces a private property owner to do something against their wishes is a Socialist Bill...
This bill is as good as dead! Texas business will not allow this to happen. The assumption that Legislative Committee will kill this bill makes me laugh. This bill has been thrown in the trash three times and it keeps comming back.
Get a clue! Texans do not want law's that infirnge on private property ownership!

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Mr. McCrary, how do you like your crow served -- rare or well done?

Chas.

IMHO, one's vehicle is a "bubble" of their own private property which displaces the land or building owner's property upon which it rests.

The 2007 law changes that treat vehicles as private property as far as non-CHL carry support my opinion, and SB321 merely makes it consistent.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 7 matches

Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots

Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots

Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots

Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots

Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots

Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots

Re: Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots