Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

[apostate]

.

[BFGJoe]

Thanks for the clarification. After posting and reading things over for the meeelionth time I finally came to the same conclusion. So the answer is "B" and the lawyers got it right. That restores my faith in humanity, sort of.

So basically the energy companies got what they wanted. One case I know of is a large multi-acreage campus that *was primarily* for R&D that has the air authorization but all facilities, office buildings, etc. are contained in one huge "secure parking lot" that meets the criteria. There is only temporary parking outside the gates, if you try and stay long term (including employees) you are towed. All visitors park in temp lot, check in with security to get a badge, and then move into the secure parking area. So as long as the company claims that handling hazardous materials, etc. is the "primary business conducted" (how is this determined anyway?) they basically have skirted the issue and not even CHL's benefit from the new law once companies get done consolidating their facilities (like most of them are doing right now). Sound about right? Or does "not open to the public" mean only parking lots where employees and contractors are allowed?

Thanks!
- Joe

[Iunnrais]

Well we got clarification of the policies for our location from the owning company today. The policy is that employees of the property owner are able to keep firearms in their vehicle. Employees of companies leasing space in the buildings are expected to follow all restrictions imposed by the property owner. The property owner considers all employees of the leasing companies to be contractors for the purposes of SB 321

[Keith B]

Well we got clarification of the policies for our location from the owning company today. The policy is that employees of the property owner are able to keep firearms in their vehicle. Employees of companies leasing space in the buildings are expected to follow all restrictions imposed by the property owner. The property owner considers all employees of the leasing companies to be contractors for the purposes of SB 321

So, is the property posted with 30.06? If not, then IMO you are free and clear. The property owner is not your employer, and your employer can't prohibit you from having it in your vehicle.

[Hans]

Hi Hans, and welcome to the forum.

Unfortunately, this is correct. The bill only covers employees, not contractors, vendors or other visitors to the company.

An example is if the company posted 30.06 signs on the parking lot, it would not apply to the employees, but no other CHL's can come onto the lot with a firearm in their vehicle.

The other thing to realize is the refineries have some more restrictions that they can place on employees with CHL's as to where they are allowed to park.

Thanks.

I received similar clarification from Alice Tripp as well. Contractors and visitors had to be excluded to get the bill to pass. This bill faced quite a bit of opposition. Just glad I can now legally keep 'em in the parking lot at the office.

[Iunnrais]

No, no 30.06 anywhere on property.

Well the problem there is that the property owner maintains that they have the right to search any person, vehicle or property that comes on site at anytime. Refusal of a search by security gets you a one way trip off property permanently. (they actually threaten to proscecute for trespass if you refuse the search). Not being allowed on property would mean that I would be permanently unable to report for work... So while it may be legal for me to have it in my vehicle, it would still cost me my job if ever discovered. I would actually expect the property owner to request my company to terminate any violaters. They have already expressed similar requests for simple parking lot violation.

Edit: my company does close to 1bn in business with the property owner each year. Our board tends to bend over backwards to keep them happy.

[C-dub]

No, no 30.06 anywhere on property.

Well the problem there is that the property owner maintains that they have the right to search any person, vehicle or property that comes on site at anytime. Refusal of a search by security gets you a one way trip off property permanently. (they actually threaten to proscecute for trespass if you refuse the search). Not being allowed on property would mean that I would be permanently unable to report for work... So while it may be legal for me to have it in my vehicle, it would still cost me my job if ever discovered. I would actually expect the property owner to request my company to terminate any violaters. They have already expressed similar requests for simple parking lot violation.

Edit: my company does close to 1bn in business with the property owner each year. Our board tends to bend over backwards to keep them happy.

I'm curious if your parking lot is a secured lot. Is it open to the public? It might be private property, but could anyone drive into the lot or is it fenced with a gate and have limited access or a guard that grants access?

I'm wondering if the owner of a strip mall can prohibit all the employees of the various stores located in that building from keeping their guns in their cars. If they don't work for him I guess he could post a proper 30.06 sign for the lot.

[Iunnrais]

Its an office building with a gated parking lot. Badge access to both the parking lot and past the lobby is controlled by a security company contracted by the building owners.

[C-dub]

Its an office building with a gated parking lot. Badge access to both the parking lot and past the lobby is controlled by a security company contracted by the building owners.

I almost got my threads mixed up.

So, you are not an employee of the property owner, right? This get's a bit sticky. Keith B. or a couple other guys will probably know more about the details than I do on this one.

However, I think if the property owner wants to prohibit everyone other than his employees from keeping a gun in their vehicle he must post a proper 30.06 sign somewhere in the parking lot.

[apostate]

.

[Z1166]

How the hell can a private organization require you to consent your vehicle to search? IMHO, that's a complete violation of your privacy, especially considering your vehicle is an extension of your home in most CHL instances. Their "right" (company policy) cannot invade your RIGHT. And then you're trespassing if you do not consent to the search? Give me a break!

[apostate]

.

[Iunnrais]

They have private property rights too. You don't have to consent to the search. They don't have to let you on their property.

Pretty much. Sad thing is that my company tried to buy the building a couple of years back. The owner was willing to sell to us but there is a 3rd party with 1st rights if it ever sells. That party indicated that they would buy it out from under my company so we ended up leasing several floors from the owner instead.

[C-dub]

How the heck can a private organization require you to consent your vehicle to search? IMHO, that's a complete violation of your privacy, especially considering your vehicle is an extension of your home in most CHL instances. Their "right" (company policy) cannot invade your RIGHT. And then you're trespassing if you do not consent to the search? Give me a break!

So true when you are on public property or with regards to someone breaking into your vehicle illegally. However, when on private property or as a condition of employment it is a different story.

[chadster]

Hey everyone, I have a question about this bill and my companies policy on it.

We all received an email at work last week explaining that due to the passage of SB321, CHL holders will now be allowed to keep their weapons locked up in their cars. Of course, this benefits me, but what they have said is that this bill is only limited to CHL'ers and nobody else. We are not a refinery or a chemical plant. We are in the oil and gas industry, but strictly as an engineering and support type of firm. I've read the bill and I can see how it can easily be misinterpreted, but just to be sure, does my company have the right to limit this to only people who have their CHL? Or should this bill encompass all employees who can legally own a gun or ammunition? That's basically the way I understand it.

"employer may not prohibit an employee"

-who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun...
-who otherwise lawfully posesses a firearm,
-or who lawfully posesses ammunition

I think the phrase "who otherwise posesses...", and the word "or" tells me that there are multiple situations in which it is legal to keep your weapon in your car, and the word "or" means you don't have to necessarily meet all of the requirements.

Am I correct in this? We actually have a meeting at 2:00 today with someone from our main office to discuss this.