TexasCHLforum.com

I am having a very difficult time finding this information, and have performed searches with negative results. My company leases land from the city of Fort Worth, but restricts weapons from the parking lot per company policy. This company is a multi-national with offices in all 50 states so it is trying to form a policy applicable to all of them. Our latest policy letter say that the company will comply with whatever local and state laws are in place concerning weapons on company property.
The question is whether or not the company has the right to restrict employees with CHLs from storing there firearms in their vehicle in the parking lot, as the parking lot is "government property" even though it is leased to the company? I am hesitant to query the company's HR dept until I get some opinions from the esteemed members here?

Thanks all!

Vmo

Are you asking if they can post the parking lot per 30.06 and have violators prosecuted or are you asking if they can fire employees for violating company policy? If the latter, the private/public ownership of the property is irrelevant IMO because there is no 30.06 prosecution, only termination of the employee relationship.

I understand that I would be safe from prosecution under 30.06. My question is more of does the intent of the 30.06 law fall under the portion of the policy that says the company will comply with state/local laws. I want to ask HR, but I don't want to "poison the well". So I need opinions on how to proceed, an/or forget about it.

Thanks,
Vmo

You are going to get opinions on both sides of the question. I honestly don't understand why there is a diversity of opinion, as the Penal Code is abundantly clear; TPC §30.06 cannot be used to prohibit armed CHL's from going onto/into the property. The argument from the other side is that a lessee typically obtains control over the property as well as many of the rights of the owner. In truth, the lease contract determines the rights of the lessee, but a property owner cannot confer greater rights to a lessee than the owner enjoys.

For example, a private owner of property could not convey the right to open a bar to a lessee, if the property is in a "dry" county, or too close to a school. In the same way, a governmental agency/entity cannot convey the right to prohibit armed CHL's they the agency doesn't have that right itself.

Again, the Penal Code is clear and expressly states, (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035. Note, the focus is on who owns the property, not who is in control. Leasing the property to a primate person or entity does not change its ownership; it remains "property . . . owned . . . by a governmental agency."

Chas.

Sorry, I was typing my response when you posted again. There is no answer to your question. Legislative intent was to prevent government owned property from being posted off-limits to CHL's. Whether that rises to the level your employer would want to allow employees to have guns in their cars is not something anyone could answer, other than the policy makers at your company.

Your employer may mean it will not violate any state law on "employer parking lots" like some states have and we are trying to pass in Texas.

Chas.

Yes, the company sent out a letter that they intend to follow applicable state laws, but when I asked my HR rep, he told me that Texas doesn't have a "parking lot law" so we are still prohibited. I wonder if it is worth pointing out the 30.06 exemption of government owned property. I don't want to carry on the premises, but would like to store in the parking lot for my journey back and forth.

Vmo

1. What are the chances that if you show up with the law in hand, they'll say, "OK then it is legal to carry here."?
2. What are the chances that they'll look up the statutes and then post 30.06 signs?
3. What are the chances that they'll find out you're carrying and will attempt to fire you or to prosecute and you'll be put in a position of defending yourself?

I'd say the answers to those questions would determine how I'd move forward.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035. Note, the focus is on who owns the property, not who is in control. Leasing the property to a primate person or entity does not change its ownership; it remains "property . . . owned . . . by a governmental agency."

Charles,

That is what the law states, so can you help answer the question about the Gun Shows that are held at Pasadena Convention Center.
It is city owned. For the gun shows, a private entity leases the space and they post big and bold the 30.06 and they have officers there enforcing it.

Teamless wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035. Note, the focus is on who owns the property, not who is in control. Leasing the property to a primate person or entity does not change its ownership; it remains "property . . . owned . . . by a governmental agency."

Charles,

That is what the law states, so can you help answer the question about the Gun Shows that are held at Pasadena Convention Center.
It is city owned. For the gun shows, a private entity leases the space and they post big and bold the 30.06 and they have officers there enforcing it.

You're right, that's what's being done. However, the law is clear.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're right, that's what's being done. However, the law is clear.

Chas.

Ok, more so, how/when will it get changed?

When someone has the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
to be the test case & win.

LT, I was afraid that was the answer!
But I would also hope there would be a better way to answer it.

Teamless wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're right, that's what's being done. However, the law is clear.

Chas.

Ok, more so, how/when will it get changed?

Never. If we tried to make it more clear, we'd lose the issue. Too many people take a property rights approach, even to property you possess only under a lease. If we open up this area, it will go the other way.

As for gun shows, most building owners, including government buildings, won't rent to a gun show promoter unless they have insurance for the event. Insurance companies won't issue policies without a "no loaded guns" sign that is effective for the state in which the gun show is held. That's the reason gun show promoters post signs. It's ironic that an effective 30.06 sign prohibits all guns, not just loaded ones. When you are given permission to enter with an unloaded gun, you now have permission to be on the property whether or not the gun is loaded. (But I'm not getting into that one! )

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Teamless wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're right, that's what's being done. However, the law is clear.

Chas.

Ok, more so, how/when will it get changed?

Never. If we tried to make it more clear, we'd lose the issue. Too many people take a property rights approach, even to property you possess only under a lease. If we open up this area, it will go the other way.

As for gun shows, most building owners, including government buildings, won't rent to a gun show promoter unless they have insurance for the event. Insurance companies won't issue policies without a "no loaded guns" sign that is effective for the state in which the gun show is held. That's the reason gun show promoters post signs. It's ironic that an effective 30.06 sign prohibits all guns, not just loaded ones. When you are given permission to enter with an unloaded gun, you now have permission to be on the property whether or not the gun is loaded. (But I'm not getting into that one! )

Chas.

IMHO, the insurance aspect is an important one, that's often overlooked. Whatever one's views are on tort reform, we live in a market economy and there's little benefit in winning a battle, while pricing oneself out of the war.

The insurance factor is often the driving factor on employers. Most Workers Compensation insurance policies will require the insured to have a anti-violence, and/or no weapons policy. Otherwise, the insured could find themselves without coverage should something occur due to policy exceptions.