Concern with Parking Lot Bill

[terryg]

(First: Mod's, there is not a 2011 Texas Legislative Session Topic yet. Please feel free to move this wherever it should be. Thx.)

I am encouraged by the wording of HB 86 (Campus Carry) in that it doesn't seem to exempt private institutions. In fact, it looks to me, as written, that it would not even allow a university as an employer to prohibit it's employees from carrying. This would be absolutely IDEAL for me. But, I am skeptical that it can pass as is.

So I have been looking forward to a parking lot bill to at least allow me to be armed to and from work. But in reading last years bills (SB 13 and HB 12), I stumbled across a section that has me concerned:

(d) This section does not prohibit a public or private
employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, from transporting or
storing a firearm the employee is authorized by law to possess in a
locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking area the
employer provides employees if:
(1) access to the parking area is restricted or
limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station, sign, or
other means of restricting or limiting general public access; and
(2) the employer provides:
(A) an alternative location on the employer's
property for the employee to securely store the employee's unloaded
firearm while on the employer's property; or
(B) an alternative parking area reasonably close
to the main parking area in which employees and other persons may
transport or store firearms in locked, privately owned motor
vehicles.

Currently, anyone (faculty, staff, student, licensed or not), can store a weapon in the Campus Police armory. This allows students living on campus to have some access to a personally owned weapon for off campus sporting purposes. I am concerned that if this provision remains unmodified and intact in the version that passes this year, it will give the University an easy way to maintain existing restrictive policies.

Checking a weapon in and out of the armory is not a quick procedure as a free officer must be located and there is a sign in process, etc. This would not be practical at all as a part of a daily commute. But there is no doubt in my mind that University would utilize this as a way to claim compliance with the new bill.

[Katygunnut]

IANAL, but it might well come down to the interpretation of the requirement to "provide" the alternate location. Seems like this would inherently require the location to be provided with reasonable convenience in the spirit of the law.

I'll be interested to see what the lawyers on this board have to say on this.

[terryg]

IANAL, but it might well come down to the interpretation of the requirement to "provide" the alternate location. Seems like this would inherently require the location to be provided with reasonable convenience in the spirit of the law.

I'll be interested to see what the lawyers on this board have to say on this.

That's what I'm hoping for - people to comment who actually understand the gobbledygook. Where are our IANAL's?

[dicion]

Where are our IANAL's?

I'm here!

Note that the PArking lot bill from last year referenced above states the following:

(d) This section does not prohibit a public or private
employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, from transporting or
storing a firearm the employee is authorized by law to possess in a
locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking area the
employer provides employees if:
(1) access to the parking area is restricted or
limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station, sign, or
other means of restricting or limiting general public access; and
(2) the employer provides:
(A) an alternative location on the employer's
property for the employee to securely store the employee's unloaded
firearm while on the employer's property; or
(B) an alternative parking area reasonably close
to the main parking area in which employees and other persons may
transport or store firearms in locked, privately owned motor
vehicles.

And meaning Both. If they do part 1, they have to do one of part 2's.

So, the parking lot needs to be restricted so that the general public cannot access it. This does not mean just signs, this means a physical barrier that people cannot pass through. Think along the lines of Federal Building Secure Area fencing, or Airport fencing. That kind of requirement.

I can tell you, right now, that no campus I have ever been to has had a parking lot that would meet these requirements.

Also, even IF they do that, they would have to provide a second parking lot that you CAN store your firearms in your vehicle in, somewhere nearby the main one or that locker to store it somewhere. It goes without saying that you would have to be allowed to carry it to/from your car to that locker area as well.

[terryg]

Where are our IANAL's?

I'm here!

Thank you!

And meaning Both. If they do part 1, they have to do one of part 2's.

So, the parking lot needs to be restricted so that the general public cannot access it. This does not mean just signs, this means a physical barrier that people cannot pass through. Think along the lines of Federal Building Secure Area fencing, or Airport fencing. That kind of requirement.

I can tell you, right now, that no campus I have ever been to has had a parking lot that would meet these requirements.

OK - good! Because we have regular parking gates - something like these:



So I didn't know if that would qualify as "limiting general public access".

Thank you!

[Bullwhip]

(1) access to the parking area is restricted or
limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station, sign, or
other means of restricting or limiting general public access;

This does not mean just signs, this means a physical barrier that people cannot pass through.

Looks to me like they dont require any barrier. It says "restricted or limited" by a "sign" is good enough.

But they do need #2 too.

[terryg]

But they do need #2 too.

It's the number 2 that concerns me - if it's provided in such a way as to be so inconvient as to be useless.

[quidni]

And meaning Both. If they do part 1, they have to do one of part 2's.

So, the parking lot needs to be restricted so that the general public cannot access it. This does not mean just signs, this means a physical barrier that people cannot pass through. Think along the lines of Federal Building Secure Area fencing, or Airport fencing. That kind of requirement.

I can tell you, right now, that no campus I have ever been to has had a parking lot that would meet these requirements.

Also, even IF they do that, they would have to provide a second parking lot that you CAN store your firearms in your vehicle in, somewhere nearby the main one or that locker to store it somewhere. It goes without saying that you would have to be allowed to carry it to/from your car to that locker area as well.

The problem I forsee with this is, any BG in the know about the difference between the two parking lots will know exactly which lot to go to if he wants to go "gun shopping."

[dicion]

(1) access to the parking area is restricted or
limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station, sign, or
other means of restricting or limiting general public access;

This does not mean just signs, this means a physical barrier that people cannot pass through.

Looks to me like they dont require any barrier. It says "restricted or limited" by a "sign" is good enough.

But they do need #2 too.

I remember reading that the original legislative intent for this section was to appease certain chemical and oil companies, which already have fenced in parking areas with guards, etc. As such, I do not think that a simple sign would render an area appropriately 'restricted' in this section. A 'no guns' sign doesn't stop criminals from robbing places, so I don't see how they would expect a 'restricted area' sign to prevent criminals from going there to rob people.

I agree though that the wording is vague, and could be more specific. Lets hope that that wording makes it into any bill introduced this session!

[C-dub]

The type of barrier like above also has me a little worried. My employer has a similar gate and a fence around the parking lot. However, this only gives the illusion of keeping a car or truck out of the parking lot. A motorcycle or pedestrian can go right on in. There are guards, but they are only alarms. They cannot prevent anyone from doing anything and they are not supposed to either. We even have a visitor parking lot that has complete public access. Someone can park there and then walk all around the rest of the employee parking lot, which is only feet away with no other barrier at all.