Second, I'm very concerned about them (both? either?). While on the one hand it's always a good thing to tighten down the wording and make things more explicit, on the other I know that for me, personally (and for a whole lot of other people who may not realize it yet), it's probably going to mean I'll have to stop carrying for well over 80% of the time I'm outside of my front door.
Why? It's the largest employers that are the ones with the wherewithal to meet the criteria for (b)(1) and (b)(2). For example, the company I work for has several different facilities in town that each house 2,000 or more employees. Today, all the buildings themselves are 30.06 posted. But the current statutes, I think, leave some interpretive room and, while all five of these facilities have parking lots that meet the new criteria and could be posted tomorrow (and, trust me; that posting will happen if the new bill passes), it isn't entirely clear if, today, an employee parking lot can be posted; so there are no signs at the entrances to the lots, only on the doors to the buildings. (Also keep in mind that employee parking lots of this size often mean there is no other parking option for employees within walking distance of the facility.)
The new bill(s) rewrite GC Section 411.203, which today simply reads:
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business.
Penal Code Section 46.035 defines premises:
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
So today, I do not consider myself in violation of the law if I have a handgun concealed and secured in my vehicle when I drive to work and park there.
The new bill introduces this:
(b) ... A private employer may prohibit an employee from transporting or storing a concealed handgun in a vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees if:
(1) the parking lot, garage, or other area is completely surrounded by a gate and is not open to the public; and
(2) ingress to and egress from the parking lot, garage, or other area are monitored by security personnel. [Note that I construe this to mean the personnel do not have to be physically present at the entrances and exits, that electronic monitoring is sufficient.]
I'll reiterate that it's the companies who employ tens of thousands who are the ones that already meet this "restricted" parking lot criteria, and if they already have the buildings 30.06 posted, I'm bettin' lunch money that the parking lots will have new signs within a few weeks of the September 1 enactment of HB220/511...if it passes. So this, I believe, has the potential to affect significant numbers of CHL holders.
The only parking option I have where I work is the employer-provided lot. If I am legally restricted from having my weapon concealed and secured in my vehicle, that means I can't even take it out of the house when I make the hour drive to work; and I won't have it with me if I run errands at lunchtime; and I won't have it if I go somewhere after work; and I won't have it on the hour drive back home. That'll sure blow my hopes of going to Top Gun on Mondays or Tuesdays after work...although maybe G.C. will let me just point my finger and yell "bang" in place of actual firearm training.
Am I the only person who works for a big company that's worried about this? I don't think I'm misreading the potential impact. It seems as if the proposed bill(s) do more to restrict CHL holders than enable them. I can't figure out why HB220 or HB511 are good things...
