HB681/SB321 Parking Lots Bill is on the Floor

[Keith B]

How does affect Penal Code 46.03(a)(1)? You know, the written authorization of a school part?

SB321 doesn't make any changes to the Penal Code. It's already legal for school employees to have firearms in their vehicles on school property--they can just be fired if it is discovered.

No different than before. However, the schools CAN adopt a policy to allow employees to carry in their cars (always could before too for that matter), but maybe this law would help the districts that may be a little sympathetic to allow at least car carry.

[hirundo82]

No different than before. However, the schools CAN adopt a policy to allow employees to carry in their cars (always could before too for that matter), but maybe this law would help the districts that may be a little sympathetic to allow at least car carry.

Especially since they'll now have the liability protection that this bill provides. That's assuming that school bans on guns in employees' cars are based on some rational reason and not mere hoplophobia, and the campus carry debate leads me to believe it is the latter.

[baldeagle]

Got an alert the SB 321 passed the house as amended. If the Senate approves, the parking lot bill becomes law!

[OldSchool]

Please forgive me, I can only devote two brain cells to all of this, this week.
I'm sure this has already been discussed in this thread, but I can't quite follow.

Is it correct that this does not force colleges to allow employees to have firearms in the parking lot? If so, why? (I was hoping for at least some relief at one of my jobs....)

Thanks.

[apostate]

Is it correct that this does not force colleges to allow employees to have firearms in the parking lot? If so, why? (I was hoping for at least some relief at one of my jobs....)

I don't see that in the text. There's an exemption in the Senate version for prekindergarten through grade 12 schools, but not for universities.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00321E.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, the bill only protects employees. It does not seem to limit a company's ability, through policy or trespass notice, to prohibit guns in cars owned/driven by contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, customers, etc.

[baldeagle]

Please forgive me, I can only devote two brain cells to all of this, this week.
I'm sure this has already been discussed in this thread, but I can't quite follow.

Is it correct that this does not force colleges to allow employees to have firearms in the parking lot? If so, why? (I was hoping for at least some relief at one of my jobs....)

Thanks.

Universities can create policies that provide punishment for keeping a firearm in your vehicle, but it is not against the law. I haven't read the employee parking lot bill from that aspect, but logically I would think it would only apply to staff and faculty of the university.

[baldeagle]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SB 321 is on the list - should be discussed, if not passed, tomorrow in the Senate.

[Jasonw560]

From the Guide to Texas Legislation website:

After a bill has passed through committee deliberation and three readings in the opposite chamber, the bill is sent back to the originating chamber. A new copy of the bill is not prepared; rather, any amendments are simply attached to the bill. If no amendments were adopted by the second chamber, the bill is enrolled (prepared for signing). The enrolled bill then is signed by both presiding officers in the presence of their respective chambers and sent to the governor. Any bill making an appropriation must be sent to the comptroller of public accounts for certification before going to the governor.

When a bill that has been amended by the opposite chamber is returned to the originating chamber, the originating chamber must concur with all of the amendments made by the opposite chamber before the bill can be enrolled. If the originating chamber does not concur with some or all of the opposite chamber’s amendments, it may request the appointment of a conference committee to resolve the differences between the house and senate versions of the bill.

They could try and send this to conference committee and stall it there. I doubt that it would work.

[boomstick]

Charles,

What is your take on the Hartnett amendment?

[Keith B]

From the Guide to Texas Legislation website:

After a bill has passed through committee deliberation and three readings in the opposite chamber, the bill is sent back to the originating chamber. A new copy of the bill is not prepared; rather, any amendments are simply attached to the bill. If no amendments were adopted by the second chamber, the bill is enrolled (prepared for signing). The enrolled bill then is signed by both presiding officers in the presence of their respective chambers and sent to the governor. Any bill making an appropriation must be sent to the comptroller of public accounts for certification before going to the governor.

When a bill that has been amended by the opposite chamber is returned to the originating chamber, the originating chamber must concur with all of the amendments made by the opposite chamber before the bill can be enrolled. If the originating chamber does not concur with some or all of the opposite chamber’s amendments, it may request the appointment of a conference committee to resolve the differences between the house and senate versions of the bill.

They could try and send this to conference committee and stall it there. I doubt that it would work.

I could be wrong, but with as much support as the bill had originally going through the Senate, I doubt the more restrictive amendments added in the House will be of any consequence to not agree to. Sen. Hegar and Birdwell would be the ones that would normally object to any amendment on their bill that neutered it, and I think they will be satisfied with the changes and ask the other sponsors and supporters to vote it through.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles,

What is your take on the Hartnett amendment?

If it is the same as the copy I was provided earlier, it is of no consequence. All it does is clarify that the civil immunity granted to the employer and it's agents does not extend to any person who actually caused injury or damage with a firearm, or to the employee who brought the firearm to the parking lot, if he/she didn't lock it in their car.

Chas.

[Jasonw560]

From the Guide to Texas Legislation website:

After a bill has passed through committee deliberation and three readings in the opposite chamber, the bill is sent back to the originating chamber. A new copy of the bill is not prepared; rather, any amendments are simply attached to the bill. If no amendments were adopted by the second chamber, the bill is enrolled (prepared for signing). The enrolled bill then is signed by both presiding officers in the presence of their respective chambers and sent to the governor. Any bill making an appropriation must be sent to the comptroller of public accounts for certification before going to the governor.

When a bill that has been amended by the opposite chamber is returned to the originating chamber, the originating chamber must concur with all of the amendments made by the opposite chamber before the bill can be enrolled. If the originating chamber does not concur with some or all of the opposite chamber’s amendments, it may request the appointment of a conference committee to resolve the differences between the house and senate versions of the bill.

They could try and send this to conference committee and stall it there. I doubt that it would work.

I could be wrong, but with as much support as the bill had originally going through the Senate, I doubt the more restrictive amendments added in the House will be of any consequence to not agree to. Sen. Hegar and Birdwell would be the ones that would normally object to any amendment on their bill that neutered it, and I think they will be satisfied with the changes and ask the other sponsors and supporters to vote it through.

[thr_wedge]

Please move if this belongs in another place. What is to stop an employer from posting 30.06 signs at the parking lot? Then CHLs would be prohibited by state law (which the SB 321 says is an exception to the new law) and since a CHL is required to have the firearm under SB 321 as part of the new law, you can't claim that you are carrying under the motorist protection act.

[Hoi Polloi]

Please move if this belongs in another place. What is to stop an employer from posting 30.06 signs at the parking lot? Then CHLs would be prohibited by state law (which the SB 321 says is an exception to the new law) and since a CHL is required to have the firearm under SB 321 as part of the new law, you can't claim that you are carrying under the motorist protection act.

The email MoJo recently posted from DPS did not say a CHL holder can't ever be under the MPA, but that it would be a sordid issue that is best avoided, IIRC.

[Keith B]

Please move if this belongs in another place. What is to stop an employer from posting 30.06 signs at the parking lot? Then CHLs would be prohibited by state law (which the SB 321 says is an exception to the new law) and since a CHL is required to have the firearm under SB 321 as part of the new law, you can't claim that you are carrying under the motorist protection act.

CHL is only required if you are in the Gas/Oil industry. And, the way the bill is written, if you are an employee and they have a 30.06 sign on the property, it does not apply to you for the parking lot.