SB321, Labor Code 52.061 and 30.06

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar
gwashorn
Senior Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: Alvin, Tx

SB321, Labor Code 52.061 and 30.06

Post by gwashorn »

OK, my subject line is for updating and understanding the possible skewing by some employers the differences in requirements between the different legal codes. I am referencing some of our discussions in previous threads here such as in viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48593&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which was a discussion on mutli tennant offices etc. I had referenced what my parking lots had done back in that thread. Now today, I am posting a picture of our parking lot signs which recently went up and cover all of the lots at my work. Please read the words slowly and carefully as I scanned it first and mis-thought what it meant. It appears they have combined and intent of SB321 by referencing Labor Code 52.061 while referring to Subchapter H, subchapter 411 about licensed persons. Now as I read the sign it basically says "Hey we acknowledge if you can carry legally you can keep it in your car here" which is fine with me as that is all 52.061 covers and then exceptions in susequent parts of the labor code. No problem.

It is the very last part of the sign that gets me wondering. They state, "ONLY WHEN LOCKED IN A PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE" which is fine. My thoughts go to our previous signs which were Standard 30.06. They covered only the main executives parking lot which controlled all accesses to the building as well. Therefore, you could not carry a weapon into the building either. Now these new signs are on all lots including the previous accessed controlled lot that HAD the standard 30.06 sign. Now I am not going to say I can carry a weapon into my building legally. The new signs don't stop me but with airport standard metal detector I go through everyday, will catch me and the security will tell me I can not come in. I know that for a fact because they make me show my cell phone when it sets it off. But HYPOTHETICALLY, I see no signs stopping me.

Therefore I question whether or not the property owner "THINKS" by saying "ONLY WHEN LOCKED IN A PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE" makes them believe they have given the same effective notice as they did before with a 30.06 signs. My concern is someone coming into the building say from the visitors lot which has the present sign, goes through the access posted area and does not feel they are limited or prevented from entering because they are not given a 30.06 notice and then walk into a problem because of this new sign. Just asking for thoughts, comments or am I just a mistrusting person of company personnel because I think they are just not very smart. And no I am not thinking of asking security about it. Sleeping dogs and all but still I hate to see someone walk into a load of problems due a a misconception.

I personnally still have the question about my company policy who is a TENANT in the buidling who says no firearms and if 52.061 still covers me. But that is a different question than the 30.06 question above.
Image
Gary
AGGIE '74
NRA, TSRA, TFC
Team Trainwreck
User avatar
Lambda Force
Senior Member
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: SB321, Labor Code 52.061 and 30.06

Post by Lambda Force »

It's not 30.06 notice. It may be 30.05 notice for unlicensed people but only in the parking lot.
Tyranny is identified by what is legal for government employees but illegal for the citizenry.
User avatar
C-dub
Senior Member
Posts: 13584
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: SB321, Labor Code 52.061 and 30.06

Post by C-dub »

Yup. And if they have metal detectors and are discovered they will be given effective notice orally.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
johnson0317
Senior Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: SB321, Labor Code 52.061 and 30.06

Post by johnson0317 »

Yeah, it seems akin to those signs that indicate it is unlawful to enter a premises, with a weapon, unless you possess the license to do so. Seems to mean nothing more than, "We understand the law, but we don't understand why we are wasting money on this sign".

RJ
CHL Received 5/16/11
Proud Member NRA
Proud Member Texas Concealed Handgun Association
Proud Member Second Amendment Foundation
Proud Member of The Truth Squad founded by Tom Gresham. "A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth"
User avatar
gwashorn
Senior Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: Alvin, Tx

Re: SB321, Labor Code 52.061 and 30.06

Post by gwashorn »

johnson0317 wrote:Yeah, it seems akin to those signs that indicate it is unlawful to enter a premises, with a weapon, unless you possess the license to do so. Seems to mean nothing more than, "We understand the law, but we don't understand why we are wasting money on this sign".

RJ
LOL, that was EXACTLY my thought too! They had effective 30.06 before and now this to say we know we can't stop you here in the lot. Oh well, hope no one gets a case of the red face one day coming into the building.
Gary
AGGIE '74
NRA, TSRA, TFC
Team Trainwreck
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”