SB 321 SENATE Employer Parking Lot hearing today

[Charles L. Cotton]

Interesting, thanks

That opens a can of worms....my brother owns a 1/32 interest mineral rights, my sister owns a 1/32 interest in the same property .... wonder what happens if they disagree, if just 1 can prohibit or if all 50 owners of larger and smaller interests must all agree to prohibit .... or if just the surface rights owner prohibits ... I owned a 1/3 surface rights interest in 360 acres of cotton farms, and ...They should get rid of that entirely.

The Farmer Brown provision is a mess IMO.

viewtopic.php?f=110&t=41043" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the first place…hunting on leased lands (without permission) is NOT a widespread problem…though it does exist.

But that isn’t the real reason for this provision anyway. It is simply the “guise” under which a “deal” can be struck with Oil and Gas companies…so they won’t try to block passage of this bill.

If “hunting” were the issue…then the Texas Parks Wildlife Department needs to take care of that, right? Don’t we pay them to do just that? Hunting without permission is ALREADY illegal, why do we need the legislature involved here?

I’ll tell you why. Because…if the parking lot bill passes and becomes law….then there can be a problem. If “Farmer Brown” negotiates a no guns clause in his lease agreement , BUT…. the law states employees may have a gun in their vehicle (in the parking area), then it makes it hard for the Oil and Gas people to get the contract/lease.

Oil and Gas companies represent big money and influence; they want this “exception”. Those trying to get the bill passed DON’T need a big fight with O&G.

So…how do the O&G people get what they want…while not looking like they purposely threw their own employees under the bus (in terms of being able to protect themselves).

Well…….remember that little “hunting problem”. If we use that reason….then we can shift the blame to a few people breaking the game laws.

That way…. our employees won’t be looking to US…as the reason they can’t carry (like everyone else).

I guess they think no one will figure it out!

Come on politicians….lets at least be honest!

Yes, the "Farmer Brown" provision is necessary to get the bill passed. But this provision applies only to very few people that are actually working on Farmer Brown's land. As for not getting the government involved, that's precisely what the employer parking lot bill does -- it gets the government involved on behalf of employees. The status quo allows oil companies to prohibit guns everywhere on their property, including Farmer Brown's land.

The fact that hunting or shooting without permission is a crime doesn't have anything to do with Farmer Brown wanting a no-guns provision in the mineral lease. Murder is against the law but I carry a gun so I can defend myself; I don't want to hope a LEO is around to save me.

This accommodation to the oil & gas industry and Farmer Brown is inconsequential and will impact very few people.

Chas.

[RPB]

I dunno, but when I owned the cotton farms surface and mineral rights, I just signed whatever lease was sent to me and cared about how many dollars they sent a month for how many years, that's all I read. I honestly don't recall ever seeing the land I owned. It was in Hockly County and I was in Harris County. A neighboring farmer contracted to grow my cotton for a percentage, I got an itemized list of expenses and I got checks for the cotton sales. I'd be mad if I learned I signed something preventing an employees from carrying, that portion of the bill would make me actually have to read by default instead of just sign and get money by default.
I sold all that because I hated spending 2 weeks of vacation figuring out and doing the taxes which the IRS and CPAs didn't understand "easily" even if it's in "their" Tax Code, since 1099PATR requires paying taxes on money no one will get for 20 years from now even if you don't own it then and someone else gets the income... and getting "free" money no one has to pay taxes on now because someone else paid income tax 20 years earlier. (Patronage Dividends in Co-ops) .. I still own mineral rights in Comanche and in Harris County, but doubt I'll ever need to worry about those.

I guess you explained it, maybe it has a purpose, glad I don't have to read leases, I'll inform some people they need to read leases now. I know, I worked for lawyers over 25 years, read before signing, but Gulf, Shell, Phillips, Chevron wrote pages and pages to say I get a X dollars a month for x number years, I really wasn't concerned about the rest and my neighbor grew the cotton so I dunno if guns bother him or not, but he profited and could always say he didn't want to make profit from my land.

[flintknapper]

Chas Wrote:

Yes, the "Farmer Brown" provision is necessary to get the bill passed. But this provision applies only to very few people that are actually working on Farmer Brown's land.

I don't know exactly how many people there are working on Oil and Gas rigs/leases across the State, but I'd have to say... its more than a "few". The provision would apply to anyone that currently carries under CHL, MPA or has a legal long gun in their own vehicle.

As for not getting the government involved, that's precisely what the employer parking lot bill does -- it gets the government involved on behalf of employees.

Which works in the favor of everyone NOT employed by O&G company, petrochemical co. or the school system. Great for them...(and more than we have now), but not too comforting for those excepted.

And where is the "hunting thing" in all of this?

The status quo allows oil companies to prohibit guns everywhere on their property, including Farmer Brown's land.

No. Oil companies cannot prohibit an employee from having a firearm in their possession (by CHL, MPA or legal carry of a long-gun)...provided they are in their own vehicle and Farmer Brown has no provision against it in his lease agreement. They can forbid an employee from possessing a firearm if the employee uses a company vehicle in the course of their work. The provision would change this. Besides, "Farmer Brown" can already forbid firearms (any or all) on his property if he likes.

The fact that hunting or shooting without permission is a crime doesn't have anything to do with Farmer Brown wanting a no-guns provision in the mineral lease.

I suppose only Farmer Brown knows why he wouldn't want firearms on his property, reasons are varied...I am sure, but one of the "supposed" reasons...is "illegal hunting". So if that is the reason, why not let TPWD deal with it?

Murder is against the law but I carry a gun so I can defend myself; I don't want to hope a LEO is around to save me.

I am sure the O&G and School employees would agree.

This accommodation to the oil & gas industry and Farmer Brown is inconsequential and will impact very few people.

I'm not so sure the wife (daughters and sons) of an oil field worker would find it of no consequence if Dad didn't come home because he couldn't protect himself from a deadly threat, but I do understand that politics demands concessions (some of which make no sense).

Hopefully, the bill will pass without further amendments (neutering).

If this is the best we can do, then so be it.

[jmra]

Chas Wrote:

Murder is against the law but I carry a gun so I can defend myself; I don't want to hope a LEO is around to save me.

I am sure the O&G and School employees would agree.

I am a school employee and I am very excited about this bill. Not because of what it does (or doesn't do) for me as an individual but what it does for the majority of the people. Do I wish everyone was covered? Of course, but it will cover my wife and other members of my family.

P.S. Thank you Chas for everything you are doing to help make this state a safer place for my wife and kids.

[C-dub]

Oil companies cannot prohibit an employee from having a firearm in their possession (by CHL, MPA or legal carry of a long-gun)...provided they are in their own vehicle and Farmer Brown has no provision against it in his lease agreement. They can forbid an employee from possessing a firearm if the employee uses a company vehicle in the course of their work. The provision would change this. Besides, "Farmer Brown" can already forbid firearms (any or all) on his property if he likes.

Sure they can. My company does. All they have to do is post 30.06 signs or put the correct wording in the employee handbook to be able to prosecute someone that is found to have a gun on their person or in their vehicle on private company property. If they don't they can still have a policy against firearms and fire anyone that is found to have one on their property.

My company has a policy against having firearms on company property, but they do not post 30.06 signs or have the text in the employee handbook, so they can't do anything but fire me. Non-employees can carry away. We have several satellite offices around the metroplex and my company even says we cannot have a gun in our cars if we park in a parking lot that does not belong to us and is open to the public. Obviously, they cannot post 30.06 signs in those parking lots, but they could put the correct wording in the employee handbook. They just don't.

[KD5NRH]

I don't know exactly how many people there are working on Oil and Gas rigs/leases across the State, but I'd have to say... its more than a "few".

How many actually drive their vehicle onto the lease? Maybe the company I contracted for was atypical, but they bought a couple acres of junk land at the edge of one lease for an onsite HQ, and everybody would park personal vehicles there and use only company trucks on the actual leases. Of course it was only done for liability reasons, but it would benefit CHLs in this situation.

[flintknapper]

Oil companies cannot prohibit an employee from having a firearm in their possession (by CHL, MPA or legal carry of a long-gun)...provided they are in their own vehicle and Farmer Brown has no provision against it in his lease agreement. They can forbid an employee from possessing a firearm if the employee uses a company vehicle in the course of their work. The provision would change this. Besides, "Farmer Brown" can already forbid firearms (any or all) on his property if he likes.

Sure they can. My company does. All they have to do is post 30.06 signs or put the correct wording in the employee handbook to be able to prosecute someone that is found to have a gun on their person or in their vehicle on private company property. If they don't they can still have a policy against firearms and fire anyone that is found to have one on their property.

My company has a policy against having firearms on company property, but they do not post 30.06 signs or have the text in the employee handbook, so they can't do anything but fire me. Non-employees can carry away. We have several satellite offices around the metroplex and my company even says we cannot have a gun in our cars if we park in a parking lot that does not belong to us and is open to the public. Obviously, they cannot post 30.06 signs in those parking lots, but they could put the correct wording in the employee handbook. They just don't.

I think you've misunderstood my post (or I was unclear).

My response was in regard to Farmer Brown's land (which they lease the mineral rights to, NOT OWN). Farmer Brown has the last say... currently.

Now, your company can institute and enforce any kind of "company policy" they wish, but it has no force of law, that is an entirely different matter.

[flintknapper]

I don't know exactly how many people there are working on Oil and Gas rigs/leases across the State, but I'd have to say... its more than a "few".

How many actually drive their vehicle onto the lease? Maybe the company I contracted for was atypical, but they bought a couple acres of junk land at the edge of one lease for an onsite HQ, and everybody would park personal vehicles there and use only company trucks on the actual leases. Of course it was only done for liability reasons, but it would benefit CHLs in this situation.

Depends upon the "stage" of drilling and service work afterward.

But around here...in the initial stages...about 75% of the workers (rig workers, welders, etc) drive their personal vehicles onto the site. A few people (usually upper positions/driller,tool pusher,engineers) will have company vehicles and a small number of unskilled laborers will ride to and from work in crew trucks.

Later, the percentage shifts to company vehicles as routine maintenance is done from company vehicles, except reading of production...which is often done by a person in their own vehicle.

O&G companies also hire (subcontract/contract) local companies or persons to perform various duties, not sure how that would figure into the mix.

I just don't see how this bill will help these workers in any way. The Petrochemical companies will still not allow their employees to have a weapon in their own vehicle, and if this bill passes...O&G workers won't be able to either. Only now...it will have the force of law...whereas before it was simply up to the land/mineral owner (on leased land).

And this was because of illegal hunting?

Yes, if the bill passes (without further amendments)...we will have made inroads that I will be grateful for...but I have to wonder how many more years the O&G workers and those in the School systems will be bargaining chips...for future legislation.

[Liberty]

Most of the people I that I've met that service oil fields and pipelines are independant,and carry now, the new law doesn't do any more to discourage them than what they have now. I don't believe these people are subject to a search like they are in refinarys and processing plants. The real shame is that a new law probably won't discourage handguns, it will likely discourage long guns which is would be more practical at some of these locals.

[flintknapper]

Most of the people I that I've met that service oil fields and pipelines are independant,and carry now, the new law doesn't do any more to discourage them than what they have now. I don't believe these people are subject to a search like they are in refinarys and processing plants. The real shame is that a new law probably won't discourage handguns, it will likely discourage long guns which is would be more practical at some of these locals.

Thats true.

Most leased lands are "gated" now, but service personnel have a key or the combination. Some come at regular hours, others at odd times, but for the most part you'd never they were there.

We've had no problems with any of them. My lease agreement is pretty standard...except for a depth clause. But..I could have negotiated for anything I wanted (No guns, etc) and it would be binding if accepted.

IF a large number of Farmer Browns were calling for this legislation...then I could better understand the provision, but thats not the driving force. Its a concession/compromise...plain and simple.

Its part of the "sausage making" that is politics. Some of that process isn't pretty.

Anyway, I need to get out of this thread and send some faxes. Hopefully...we'll get a bill passed that benefits the majority of folks, I know that a lot of people are working for hard for that.