TexasCHLforum.com

For personal reasons, the parking lot bill is my primary concern though I also strongly support campus carry. My employer's parking lot is posted and I don't like the idea of having to commute through Houston without the proper means to defend myself.

Campus carry! I have night classes at UH and this is my number one.

I sincerely believe that the only reform we will see in the upcoming legislative session next year will be campus carry and the parking lot bills.

I think we should focus our attentions to these issues exclusively, as any other distraction could quite possibly result in total rejection of any bill that would be introduced, and most likely the loss of these 2 critical issues as well.

We simply cannot have everything we want all at once. Think baby steps.......see my signature line.

You do realize that Texas is at will employment state. If the company does not like guns and they catch you, law or no law you get a bad review all of a sudden and your position is eliminated 2 months down the road.

Short of a 30.06 posted parking lot the parking lot bill is a feel good measure that will not meaningfully change anything.

boomerang wrote:The same carry rules for a CHL on vacation as a LEO on vacation.

Huh? Are you referring to LEOSA?

Ziran wrote:You do realize that Texas is at will employment state. If the company does not like guns and they catch you, law or no law you get a bad review all of a sudden and your position is eliminated 2 months down the road.

Short of a 30.06 posted parking lot the parking lot bill is a feel good measure that will not meaningfully change anything.

Most states that have enacted a parking lot law prohibit the employer from even asking about a firearm in the vehicle. However, as you say they can fire you for anything. But if you can go back and prove it was due to them knowing you had a firearm in the vehicle, then you should be able to get an arbitrator to get your your job back and receive back salary.

Keith B wrote:But if you can go back and prove it was due to them knowing you had a firearm in the vehicle, then you should be able to get an arbitrator to get your your job back and receive back salary.

Unfortunately a very huge "if."

I was fired for breaking my finger on the job and filing for workman's comp, but just try proving it.

jimlongley wrote:

Keith B wrote:But if you can go back and prove it was due to them knowing you had a firearm in the vehicle, then you should be able to get an arbitrator to get your your job back and receive back salary.

Unfortunately a very huge "if."

I was fired for breaking my finger on the job and filing for workman's comp, but just try proving it.

No, I agree, it is a hard sell sometimes. My company actually sent out out an email to management stating the laws had gone into affect, which states they were, and that we were not to ask or question anyone unless you felt there was a truly viable security concern (overheard threats of violence, past history of issues, etc.) and only then to contact our internal security org and let them handle the issue from there.

karl wrote:Campus carry! I have night classes at UH and this is my number one.

Agreed. I TEACH night classes at a local college, and this is not only my number one "wish" for CHL reform, but it is the impetus for my getting a CHL in the first place. There have been some disturbing situations on or near campus in the years I have been there.

gigag04 wrote:

boomerang wrote:The same carry rules for a CHL on vacation as a LEO on vacation.

Huh? Are you referring to LEOSA?

No, but that would be the right thing to do with LEOSA, like LEAA and others promised.

I was assuming Texas reform so consider for example two people from Houston, one CHL and one LEO, both on vacation in San Antonio. My desired reform would have the same carry rules apply to both of them.

I dont understand why folks want to see time and money spent on making private businesses liable for crime on their property if they want to post 30.06. Just don't patronize those places. If they post 30.06 and you still choose to enter, you are accepting the responsibility.

Lets not ask the government to infringe on property rights just because we want more gun rights.

Ziran wrote:You do realize that Texas is at will employment state. If the company does not like guns and they catch you, law or no law you get a bad review all of a sudden and your position is eliminated 2 months down the road.

Short of a 30.06 posted parking lot the parking lot bill is a feel good measure that will not meaningfully change anything.

You're right, Texas is an employment-at-will state, but employers get sued all the time for firing someone under a pretext. Sure, you have to prove it, but that's the case with any lawsuit. Something else to consider is that it may be easier for the employer firing the first employee, but subsequent firings tend to prove a pattern.

Passing an employer parking lot bill is no guarantee of peace and tranquility at work, but few employers are going to risk lawsuits and the expense of defending them that comes even when you win.

Chas.

Ziran wrote:How about something along these lines (both A) and B)):

A) Make business immune to any civil law suits (similar to castle doctrine) resulting from people being shot on premises if they explicitly allow concealed carry on premises by their employees and anyone else legally entering their premises (basically the idea is to reward businesses that recognize reality that the best way to protect folks is to make sure good guys are armed).

B) Make business explicitly liable for civil damages resulting from folks being shot on premises if they disallow concealed carry (even if it is only for their employees).

This way the "true believers" can still ban guns if they want to but these that do it only for boilerplate legal / insurance reasons would now have every reason to explicitly allow CHL.

I have ideals but the pragmatist in me moderates them. My ideal CHL reform is to do away with the requirement all together (we are close with the MPA). The CHL is an infringement of our RKBA.

That said, we are in a "shall issue" state which, constitutional arguments aside, means the concealed carry of a firearm is permitted without the threat (Handdog excepted) of taking a ride simply because you are armed; not a "defense to prosecution" after an arrest. We don't have to satisfy the subjective standard of some bureaucrat in order to prove our "need" to defend ourselves. Some other states have "better" CCW laws than us, but we're in a better position than most. So this is where the pragmatist comes in.

As our liberties have been greatly infringed by slow erosion, a gradual accumulation of seemingly inconsequential laws, a reversal of our status requires the same. At each legislative session add one or two more expansions of the existing laws and eventually, any restrictions remaining will be truly meaningless. Federally we attach RKBA amendments to acts that fits the agenda of the current administration. All the while we educate whenever the opportunity presents itself.

I think the "Campus Carry" is a priority. Increasingly, horrific attacks are perpetrated against large numbers of our best and brightest who are unable to protect themselves. Campus attacks on individuals are, despite the lack of reporting in the media, nearly epidemic. Yet it is not only an expulsion, but a prosecution should you chose to defend yourself.

The parking lot bill is almost as critical as one has to make the choice of protecting themselves or losing their job. In the odd case where the parking lot is posted, they could be prosecuted as well. So they are given the unsavory choice of risking firing/jail or risking attack without recourse...not only there but to and from work or school.

Maybe not this time, but I see the liability when restricting CCW as a real eventuality. I have the right to deny access to my property for any reason, or no reason. But then again, my property is not otherwise open to public access. If I were to open it up to generally unrestricted access, then where do I have the right to restrict someone for exercising their legal right to defend themselves? In a republic, my rights end where yours begin. It will take an extraordinary resolve in the legislature or a precedent. The pragmatist in me looks around and sees the reality.

A battle is often a contest of inches. Expand your foothold first and then subdue the target from solid ground. I have to go with Charles on this, let's get these two critical and realistic goals met THEN focus on a few more important issues for next time. The "boiling frog" is a non sequiter...a logical fallacy; but it is a powerful image. Let's boil this frog!

tallmike wrote:I dont understand why folks want to see time and money spent on making private businesses liable for crime on their property if they want to post 30.06. Just don't patronize those places. If they post 30.06 and you still choose to enter, you are accepting the responsibility.

Lets not ask the government to infringe on property rights just because we want more gun rights.

tallmike, when I legally carry a gun I take on the full responsibility and liability for any actions and adverse consequences that may come from my exercising this right. If I shoot in self defense and hit an innocent bystander, I am liable. If my gun "accidentally" discharges, I am liable.

So then, if a property owner wants to exercise his/her rights, which in turn deny me my rights (force their rights to supercede my rights), why do they not then also take on full repsonsibility and liability for any actions and adverse consequences that may come from them exercising their rights over mine?

Dragonfighter wrote:Maybe not this time, but I see the liability when restricting CCW as a real eventuality. I have the right to deny access to my property for any reason, or no reason. But then again, my property is not otherwise open to public access. If I were to open it up to generally unrestricted access, then where do I have the right to restrict someone for exercising their legal right to defend themselves? In a republic, my rights end where yours begin. It will take an extraordinary resolve in the legislature or a precedent. The pragmatist in me looks around and sees the reality.

Well stated, Dragonfighter.