Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

[Purplehood]

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.

Anyone carrying under the MPA is in lawful possession of a handgun.

[BFGJoe]

Funny how that "or" actually means something! I will admit that there are several things in the wording of the law that would tend to make someone not using their "legalise thinking cap" feel that the law only applies to CHL's. Fought that battle a few times already. The special circumstances for CHL's are covered under exception item "F" with regards to specific types of chemical plants and refineries, where CHL's can store weapons in locked private vehicles in parking lots other than those contained in "secured areas".

Also keep in mind the bill is not limited to just handguns as the terminology used in the law is "firearms". "Weapons" isn't exactly correct, either as this law only applies to firearms and ammunition.

Good luck!
- Joe

[boba]

The law says what it says but there also doesn't seem to be any penalty for companies having conflicting policies unless/until they fire someone and the ex-employee sues.

It's like that DA in Florida prosecuting the guy who shot home invaders on his boat.

[canvasbck]

The law says what it says but there also doesn't seem to be any penalty for companies having conflicting policies unless/until they fire someone and the ex-employee sues.

It's like that DA in Florida prosecuting the guy who shot home invaders on his boat.

Actually, the NRA-ILA is planning on filing suit against companies that blatantly disregard the new law. They are asking people to report those companies to them.

[boba]

How is the written policy different than a 30.06 sign posted at a gun show on government property? Until someone is fired or arrested, what standing do they have to sue?

[Wisewr]

I have a CHL and work at a chemical plant here in the greater Houston area. The company has acknowledged the new bill and has sent out communications about it. Something they are asking, which I have not seen in the bill, is for CHLer's to "register" with the company. The form they sent out ask for all CHL information and to identify the guns you will be carrying.

I havn't seen anything like this in my reading of the bill, did I miss something? Is what their trying to do legal?

[canvasbck]

I have a CHL and work at a chemical plant here in the greater Houston area. The company has acknowledged the new bill and has sent out communications about it. Something they are asking, which I have not seen in the bill, is for CHLer's to "register" with the company. The form they sent out ask for all CHL information and to identify the guns you will be carrying.

I havn't seen anything like this in my reading of the bill, did I miss something? Is what their trying to do legal?

Several companies are doing this. This is a good one to turn in to NRA-ILA as they are forcing CHL holders to identify themselves and collecting records on CHL holders. The companies that I have spoken with that are requiring this form are planning on discipline for bringing a firearm on site that does not show up on your declaration form(s).

One good way to fight this, supply them with a list of 200-300 firearms that you may be carrying. Mix the ones you may actually bring on site with a list of firearms that you don't even own. If there is only room to list 1 or 2 firearms on their form, fill out everything except the firearm identification part and run off a bunch of copies fill in 1 firearm per form and turn in 200 forms, this should create a record keeping nightmare. These forms are for you to list any firearms that you "may" bring on site, just because you havn't bought a .50 BMG yet doesn't mean that your not going to buy one and bring it later.

[C-dub]

In another thread I expressed that I would do this, but would like to revise my position. After thinking about it, I would not provide my company with and of my CHL or weapon information. However, if a condition of employment, I like Canvasback's idea. Before doing this I would point out the drawback in their position regarding those carrying under the MPA.

[canvasbck]

He's referring to a chemical plant/refinery, so no one would be carrying under MPA..........unless the employer does not bar carrying under MPA.

[Purplehood]

I have a CHL and work at a chemical plant here in the greater Houston area. The company has acknowledged the new bill and has sent out communications about it. Something they are asking, which I have not seen in the bill, is for CHLer's to "register" with the company. The form they sent out ask for all CHL information and to identify the guns you will be carrying.

I havn't seen anything like this in my reading of the bill, did I miss something? Is what their trying to do legal?

Several companies are doing this. This is a good one to turn in to NRA-ILA as they are forcing CHL holders to identify themselves and collecting records on CHL holders. The companies that I have spoken with that are requiring this form are planning on discipline for bringing a firearm on site that does not show up on your declaration form(s).

One good way to fight this, supply them with a list of 200-300 firearms that you may be carrying. Mix the ones you may actually bring on site with a list of firearms that you don't even own. If there is only room to list 1 or 2 firearms on their form, fill out everything except the firearm identification part and run off a bunch of copies fill in 1 firearm per form and turn in 200 forms, this should create a record keeping nightmare. These forms are for you to list any firearms that you "may" bring on site, just because you havn't bought a .50 BMG yet doesn't mean that your not going to buy one and bring it later.

Ask them if you should include Hand-Grenades and Kevlar Plates on your declaration.

[kimberwolf]

Is there anything in the law that says companies can't ask for the information?

[canvasbck]

Nothing in SB321 prevents them from gathering this information. It would be a stretch, but the confidentiality language in the CHL statutes (don't remember the cite off the top of my head) could possibly restrict companies from forcing CHL holders from identifying themselves.

[tbrown]

Nothing in SB321 prevents them from gathering this information. It would be a stretch, but the confidentiality language in the CHL statutes (don't remember the cite off the top of my head) could possibly restrict companies from forcing CHL holders from identifying themselves.

If it's a refinery and the law is different for CHLers and others, I think that implies companies have the power to require proof of the license before giving the employee special treatment reserved for CHLers.

[Wisewr]

Thanks for the replies.

After further review of the law, here are some things I found that lead me to believe that they do not have the right to gather this information:

excepts from the law

Sec. 52.062 EXCEPTIONS
(F) ...except in regard to employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Goverment Code...

Sec. 411.203 towards the bottom
This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employeer to prohibt persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business.

So, what that tells me is they can prohibit people from carrying at a chemical plant or refinery, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun. They should not be able to limit, i.e. fill out a form as an approval to carry, or prohibit a CHLer while not on the premesis, which does not include the parking lot as long as it meets requirments.

Does anyone see it differently?