TexasCHLforum.com

Owens wrote:Confession: I didn't read through the whole thread swo maybe this was stated erlier.

I don't see a solid reason why this can't be as simple as what is set up for say, schools, courthouses and the like.
You can carry UP TO the front door. Parking lots and sidewalks are public. Where does the private begin? At the

door. Thats where the 30.06 begins.

Whats so hard about that?

I know...what seems simple usaully isn't. I guess there are some that are more equal than others. Well, and lawyers.

Parking lots can be posted 30.06 too.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

Owens wrote:Confession: I didn't read through the whole thread swo maybe this was stated erlier.

I don't see a solid reason why this can't be as simple as what is set up for say, schools, courthouses and the like.
You can carry UP TO the front door. Parking lots and sidewalks are public. Where does the private begin? At the

door. Thats where the 30.06 begins.

Whats so hard about that?

I know...what seems simple usaully isn't. I guess there are some that are more equal than others. Well, and lawyers.

Parking lots can be posted 30.06 too.

Anygunanywhere

He's saying 30.06 should be modified so that it has no effect on parking lots, just like sidewalks and parking lots are excluded from the premises of schools. The only problem with that idea is that it only protects employees from prosecution. The usual gist of "Parking Lot" bills is to protect the employees not only from prosecution but also from being fired.

barres wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Owens wrote:Confession: I didn't read through the whole thread swo maybe this was stated erlier.

I don't see a solid reason why this can't be as simple as what is set up for say, schools, courthouses and the like.
You can carry UP TO the front door. Parking lots and sidewalks are public. Where does the private begin? At the

door. Thats where the 30.06 begins.

Whats so hard about that?

I know...what seems simple usaully isn't. I guess there are some that are more equal than others. Well, and lawyers.

Parking lots can be posted 30.06 too.

Anygunanywhere

He's saying 30.06 should be modified so that it has no effect on parking lots, just like sidewalks and parking lots are excluded from the premises of schools. The only problem with that idea is that it only protects employees from prosecution. The usual gist of "Parking Lot" bills is to protect the employees not only from prosecution but also from being fired.

I did not read that in his post. My interpretation neurons must not be firing.

Anygunanywhere

He's saying 30.06 should be modified so that it has no effect on parking lots, just like sidewalks and parking lots are excluded from the premises of schools.

Exactamundo!

As to the firing Stuff (which I see as bovine excrement) I'm not sure of what would be a workable all parties involved solution.

I can see several perspectives on it.

1) it's our property (co. X) and yes its in public space and a customer may be able to get away with carrying, but as an employer, we're afraid we'll get sued, so we prohibit employees from carrying. No, we won't be held responsible if you get attacked and injured or killed. We can't control the criminal.

2) I have the right to self defense and I respect your right to prohibit within the physical structure, but outside, I am in the public space, and therefore entitled to self defense. As an employee, when inside, I abide. Outside, I am no different than a customer. Now if I, as an employee, were to run around naked in your parking lot with the company logo tattooed across my butt, then you have every right to fire me. But not when I am a law abiding respectable citizen exercising my God-given rights.

3) Your attitude within the company, and your behavior can be determining factors in whether you continue gainfully employed with us (Co. X). We judge carrying to be irresponsible and thus a poor reflection of our company mission statement.

4) In the parking lot, I am not WITHIN the company. Thus, you have no right to dictate what I judge to be safe and sane.

Maybe, just maybe, the solution or 'target' area is not in the 30.06 statute after all. Maybe it lays within other legal writings and code. Say, maybe in the labor laws?

I really don't know. I'm just rambling and thinking out loud here.

Would making a person's vehicle an extension of their home remove an employer's ability to search that vehicle? I use the term vehicle to cover motorcycles, bicycles, cars, trucks, RV's, basically every form of personal mechanized travel. The hard part for carrying might still be finding a way to secure your handgun in your vehicle (especially if your vehicle is a bicycle). Combine this with eliminating 30.06 effectiveness in parking lots/garages and sidewalks, like the premises of schools excludes them, and we may have a winning approach that still leaves businesses basic control of their property. Maybe. And the obligatory: I am not a lawyer, so this may not work at all .

This thread definitely has drifted away from the original topic that I posted. I guess the late-comers read the thread title, skip to page 4, then respond to the last post or three without reading the initial post.

anygunanywhere wrote: I do not find it hard to make that connection. We are responsible for our own protection and I can think of very few here who rely on LEO for protection. We do rely on our own abilitites. Employers who force their beliefs on their employees and disarm them with strong armed extortion like tactics should themselves suffer the consequences if their employees are injured by their direct demands.

Aygunanywhere

The only time that one can rely on a LEO for protection is IF that person is a LEO; otherwise, a LEO is a respondent to an act that has been committed.