Action Needed: Employer Parking Lots

[Texaspublican]

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!

[Aggie_engr]

You are entitled to your opinion, but Texans also do not want anti-gun businesses prohibiting their 2A rights under the guise of "private property rights."

This bill is as good as dead! Texas business will not allow this to happen.

We shall see as time will tell exactly what it is that Texans want, whether this bill passes or all of those supposed "representatives" get voted out next go round'.

[Pawpaw]

This Texan wants it!

Also, I see a very large difference between private property rights and commerical property rights.

[terryg]

This Texan wants it!

Also, I see a very large difference between private property rights and commerical property rights.

Yes. Commercial property is subject to many regulations primarily dealing with the safety of those using the property - which is exactly why they should be regulated in this way as well.

[Dave2]

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

No, any bill that advocates public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources is a socialist bill. Either way though, this is not forcing anybody to do anything against anybody's wishes, it's preventing them from prohibiting somebody else from doing something against their wishes.

[baldeagle]

I'm going to make this easy for y'all.

Here are the Committee Members, their NRA Rating and a link to their contact information:

Joe Deshotel - A: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... istrict=22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (512) 463-0662 Phone (512) 463-8381 Fax

Rob Orr - A: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... istrict=58" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (512) 463-0538 Phone (512) 463-0897 Fax

Dwayne Bohac - A: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... strict=138" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (512) 463-0727 Phone (512) 463-0681 Fax

John Garza - B-: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... strict=117" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (512) 463-0269 Phone (512) 463-1096 Fax

Helen Giddings - C: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... strict=109" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (512) 463-0953 Phone (512) 463-5887 Fax

Sid Miller - A: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... istrict=59" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (512) 463-0628 Phone (512) 463-3644 Fax

Chente Quintanilla - A: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... istrict=75" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (512) 463-0613 Phone (512) 463-1237 Fax

Burt Solomons - A: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... istrict=65" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (512) 463-0478 Phone (512) 463-2089 Fax

Paul Workman - A: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... istrict=47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (512) 463-0652 Phone (512) 463-0565 Fax

[jmorris]

Would it be of any use to contact Rep. Straus' office and express one's displeasure, politely, with this underhanded method of stalling the bill?

[The Annoyed Man]

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!

You couldn't be more wrong. The state has the right to force you to make your business property accessible to the handicapped, and that forced compliance actually costs you money in the form of construction materials and zoning standards. And in that case, they are not even addressing a constitutional right. On the other hand, a parking lot bill simply prevents a business from forcing it's employees to surrender a constitutional right when they aren't even on the company clock, like when they are on the way to and from work. Passing this law, which will actually address a constitutional issue, will cost businesses no more, and probably less, than enforcing handicapped access compliance.

Your argument doesn't hold up.... ....oh, and I am a business owner.

[C-dub]

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!

Yes! We do! Badly! That's why it keeps coming back. If it weren't for the socialists we wouldn't have to keep bringing it back.

Doesn't the red text contradict the blue text?

[The Annoyed Man]

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!

Actually, Texans have not been given a chance to vote on this, either directly, or vicariously through their representatives, because various combinations of Joe Strauss and the B&I committee who both seem to represent business interests very well have repeatedly made sure that The People never get a voice in the matter.

Your statement doesn't hold water.... ....oh, and I say that as a small business owner myself.

I noticed that you just joined this forum today, and most of your activity since joining has been to protest a bill currently in committee which would expand the right to keep and bear arms.... ....on a forum dedicated to the support of concealed carry and the RKBA in Texas. With all due respect, I'm just curious if your commitment to our cause goes beyond trolling the board to argue against HB621.

[Liberty]

I don't concede that any business has more property rights than I do over my car. What is in my car is my business. And no property owner has any right to my property. They shouldn't have a right to deny any thing in my vehicle as long as it stays in my vehicle, nor look and search inside. whether its bibles guns or my fishing rods.
Most of the companies that do most of complaining are foriegn companies or at least not Texan owned. Its not right that a bunch of brits thatr are planning on bailing out any way should be given voice over whether we should be able protect ourselvers.
Its not as though they have have done such a great job doing their own jobs.
The guy who brought this up, whose first post is an anti gun post. unlikely he is a CHLer or cares a bit about the RKBA



Edit to correct trollness acusation

[Liberty]

I'm going to make this easy for y'all.

Thanks ...

[The Annoyed Man]

The guy who started this thread is a troll, whose first post is an anti gun post. unlikely he is a CHLer or cares a bit about the RKBA

I think you mean "the guy at the top of this page. The guy who started the thread is Charles Cotton.

[Texaspublican]

I don't concede that any business has more property rights than I do over my car. What is in my car is my business. And no property owner has any right to my property. They shouldn't have a right to deny any thing in my vehicle as long as it stays in my vehicle, nor look and search inside. whether its bibles guns or my fishing rods.
Most of the companies that do most of complaining are foriegn companies or at least not Texan owned. Its not right that a bunch of brits thatr are planning on bailing out any way should be given voice over whether we should be able protect ourselvers.
Its not as though they have have done such a great job doing their own jobs.
The guy who started this thread is a troll, whose first post is an anti gun post. unlikely he is a CHLer or cares a bit about the RKBA

I agree with the first part of your post 100%. Thats why I said I own a business and dont care what people have in their vehicle. If the bill didnt involve property rights, it would get more attention form law makers. Now here the issue that needs to be addressed, and its searching someones vehicle. As a business own and the property owner, I can search your vehicle. Now how's that sound to you? If you conceal your firearm, how would I know its in your vehicle?
The search issue needs to be addressed because this bill will not move untill it does.
People, this bill would actually benefit me if it passes. I simply dont care if anyone has a gun inside their vehicle while on my property and I would like the same. This bill isnt about guns though! It's about business and Property!
I would also like to comment on your last remark. No sir, im not a troll. I have no anti gun bones in my body either. The CHL is simply a tool of the state that we must have in order to exercise our constitutional rights. So I guess you can say im not a CHLer because I dont approve of it even though I have one. RKBA, you need to read that and engauge me in a discussion after you start a thread on it. I understand what RKBA is more than you might think.

[G.A. Heath]

Commercial property is subject to regulation that other private property is not. A business can not post a sign saying "Minorities need not enter" without risking legal action, although a home owner can. So lets look at this bill from a property rights perspective. As a property owner you can say what is in/on your property regardless of if it is a vehicle, residence, real estate, structure, or residence. But when it comes to this parking lot bill we are looking to protect property rights by resolving a conflict between the owner of one piece of property (The Vehicle) and the owner of another piece of property (The Real Estate). When government gets involved in legislating a solution to these issues it should always err on the side of the constitution, which in this case means that the firearm inside the vehicle should be protected. By addressing only this issue the legislature would avoid prohibiting a business from searching an employee's vehicle when they suspect that the employee may have stolen property, a controlled substance, ect. stored within the vehicle. This bill would benefit employees and businesses by limiting what is protected, yet resolving a private property conflict that is currently biased towards a single entity and against a constitutional right.