Where do I stand with SB-321

[Ken77539]

With the successful passage of the Texas Employee Parking Lot Act (SB-321) I am a bit confused as to where I might stand in exercising my rights.

My situation: Texas CHL holder, T.W.I.C. (Transportation Workers Identification Credential) holder, working in a MARSEC petrochemical complex along the Houston Ship Channel. To access my refinery side employee parking lot I have to pass through a check-point manned by an un-armed “contract security officer” who checks to see if I have the proper ID badges and then grants me passage. From my parking lot I lock and leave my vehicle and proceed through a high-security turnstile, which is activated by my T.W.I.C. card, all under the watchful eye of numerous security cameras. Once inside this turnstile, I can then proceed to my worksite. Chemical plant and office personnel are exempted, as they utilize unguarded, publicly accessible, parking lots.
Now I know that what I am about to divulge would be considered “hear-say” in the legal community, but it is still enough to cause me concern. I have been told that come September 1st when SB-321 becomes law, my company will continue to deny us our rights, citing Federal MARSEC regulations, and how a federal law trumps a State law. Not being a student of the political sciences, I ask, can there be any validity in this position, or should I just write this one off as “vicious rumor”?

Sure could use some input from the more politically and legally savvy members here.

Thanks

[Vecco]

My limited understanding is the company can deny you the ability to keep a firearm in your car IF you are in a private/secure parking area, but not in the open parking lot. I am not 100% sure. But what I do know is that the company can no longer say that because you are an employee you cannot have a gun in your car anywhere at work, you just might need to park and walk some.

[sjfcontrol]

Doesn't everything go into effect 9/1/11?

[canvasbck]

With the successful passage of the Texas Employee Parking Lot Act (SB-321) I am a bit confused as to where I might stand in exercising my rights.

My situation: Texas CHL holder, T.W.I.C. (Transportation Workers Identification Credential) holder, working in a MARSEC petrochemical complex along the Houston Ship Channel. To access my refinery side employee parking lot I have to pass through a check-point manned by an un-armed “contract security officer” who checks to see if I have the proper ID badges and then grants me passage. From my parking lot I lock and leave my vehicle and proceed through a high-security turnstile, which is activated by my T.W.I.C. card, all under the watchful eye of numerous security cameras. Once inside this turnstile, I can then proceed to my worksite. Chemical plant and office personnel are exempted, as they utilize unguarded, publicly accessible, parking lots.
Now I know that what I am about to divulge would be considered “hear-say” in the legal community, but it is still enough to cause me concern. I have been told that come September 1st when SB-321 becomes law, my company will continue to deny us our rights, citing Federal MARSEC regulations, and how a federal law trumps a State law. Not being a student of the political sciences, I ask, can there be any validity in this position, or should I just write this one off as “vicious rumor”?

Sure could use some input from the more politically and legally savvy members here.

Thanks

FWIW, I'm the FSO at at an MTSA regulated facility (MARSEC) and I am the person at our facility responsible for changing our firearms policies to align with state law. I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that the Coast Guard has not yet released any guidance regarding the new law so that part of what you are hearing is not correct. It is not the MTSA regulations that are going to cause you problems, it's the state law.

If you are a contractor, you are definantly out of luck. SB 321 only protects direct employees and does not protect contractors. The facility owner can still prohibit anyone who is not a direct employee from having a firearm on the property (and pretty much all of the facilities are prohibiting contactors).

If you are a direct employee, it sounds like you may still be out of luck. It sounds as if the parking lot that you are describing is within the secure area of the plant. Under the new law, employers may still prohibit firearms inside the secure area. The law defines "secure area" with the following three pronged test:

1. It physically contains the plant
2. It is not open to the public
3. The point of entrance/egress is constantly monitored by security personnel

The only out that you may have is that if there is parking outside of the secure area that is open for employees to park in, then you would be allowed to park in that area with your firearm locked in the vehicle since you are a CHL holder.

Sorry I couldn't give you better news, hopefully this will change in future legislative sessions.

[Ken77539]

FWIW, I'm the FSO at at an MTSA regulated facility (MARSEC) and I am the person at our facility responsible for changing our firearms policies to align with state law. I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that the Coast Guard has not yet released any guidance regarding the new law so that part of what you are hearing is not correct. It is not the MTSA regulations that are going to cause you problems, it's the state law.

If you are a contractor, you are definantly out of luck. SB 321 only protects direct employees and does not protect contractors. The facility owner can still prohibit anyone who is not a direct employee from having a firearm on the property (and pretty much all of the facilities are prohibiting contactors).

If you are a direct employee, it sounds like you may still be out of luck. It sounds as if the parking lot that you are describing is within the secure area of the plant. Under the new law, employers may still prohibit firearms inside the secure area. The law defines "secure area" with the following three pronged test:

1. It physically contains the plant
2. It is not open to the public
3. The point of entrance/egress is constantly monitored by security personnel

The only out that you may have is that if there is parking outside of the secure area that is open for employees to park in, then you would be allowed to park in that area with your firearm locked in the vehicle since you are a CHL holder.

Sorry I couldn't give you better news, hopefully this will change in future legislative sessions.

Canvasbck,

Thanks for the quick response. Sounds like you are just the one to shed some light on this situation. For clarification, I am a direct employee of my company, but it looks like me and all the rest of the CHL holders in my plant are still going to be out of luck. My refinery side employee parking lot - while being physically separated from the rest of the plant with security fencing and controlled access gating to the interior plant - is totally surrounded by the complex (Item 1). This may be a grey area, but what get's us hands down though is items 2 & 3, the public access and constant security monitoring. While this new law may not benefit me and my co-workers, and those other employees in the petrochemical industry in similar situations, SB-321 was still a major win for the hundreds of thousands of Texans who were forced to give up their Constitutional and State rights to self-protection in order to feed and care for their families.

Thanks again

Ken

[canvasbck]

FWIW, I'm the FSO at at an MTSA regulated facility (MARSEC) and I am the person at our facility responsible for changing our firearms policies to align with state law. I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that the Coast Guard has not yet released any guidance regarding the new law so that part of what you are hearing is not correct. It is not the MTSA regulations that are going to cause you problems, it's the state law.

If you are a contractor, you are definantly out of luck. SB 321 only protects direct employees and does not protect contractors. The facility owner can still prohibit anyone who is not a direct employee from having a firearm on the property (and pretty much all of the facilities are prohibiting contactors).

If you are a direct employee, it sounds like you may still be out of luck. It sounds as if the parking lot that you are describing is within the secure area of the plant. Under the new law, employers may still prohibit firearms inside the secure area. The law defines "secure area" with the following three pronged test:

1. It physically contains the plant
2. It is not open to the public
3. The point of entrance/egress is constantly monitored by security personnel

The only out that you may have is that if there is parking outside of the secure area that is open for employees to park in, then you would be allowed to park in that area with your firearm locked in the vehicle since you are a CHL holder.

Sorry I couldn't give you better news, hopefully this will change in future legislative sessions.

Canvasbck,

Thanks for the quick response. Sounds like you are just the one to shed some light on this situation. For clarification, I am a direct employee of my company, but it looks like me and all the rest of the CHL holders in my plant are still going to be out of luck. My refinery side employee parking lot - while being physically separated from the rest of the plant with security fencing and controlled access gating to the interior plant - is totally surrounded by the complex (Item 1). This may be a grey area, but what get's us hands down though is items 2 & 3, the public access and constant security monitoring. While this new law may not benefit me and my co-workers, and those other employees in the petrochemical industry in similar situations, SB-321 was still a major win for the hundreds of thousands of Texans who were forced to give up their Constitutional and State rights to self-protection in order to feed and care for their families.

Thanks again

Ken

In order for the parking lot to be considered inside the secure area, it must meet all three of the above criteria. I recently was able to get the employee parking lot at one of our plants to be considered outside of the secure area because of the first prong of the test. This parking lot had a badge access electronic gate that was just across the street from the guard post that monitors the main entrance. Some of our managers wanted to state that since the automatic gate was within sight of the guards, it was constantly monitored and was not made available to the public. I was able to successfully argue that the parking lot was not within the area that physically contains the plant since the perimeter fence around the physical plant did not encompass the parking lot. One side of the parking lot was a shared fence with the perimeter fence.

You may want to talk with your facilities' FSO, if he/she is a CHL friendly kind of person like the one at our facility , then he/she may be able to make a case for CHL holders to carry in the parking lot that you describe. If the company does decide that they can still restrict that area, it really is a grey area that I doubt I would want to be the test case for.