TexasCHLforum.com

Looks like the parking lot bill was filed.

Link to the link for the text:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB321" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, forgot to do that.

Thanks for the heads up on this bill! My employer currently prohibits firearms in personal vehicles on company premises.

So it doesn't apply to school districts... Guess I'll have to contact my representatives with my displeasure to that.

jacobsd8195 wrote:So it doesn't apply to school districts... Guess I'll have to contact my representatives with my displeasure to that.

Yup,

Don't you love those "baby steps".


Also, someone want to 'splain this one to me?


property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease executed before September 1, 2011, that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property.

As a security supervisor for a large petrochemical company, I can verify that this will be a tough fight. Several petrochemical companies, including the one I work for, are already getting together in an attempt to defeat this bill. I wouldn't be suprised to see the bill amended to exempt the secure areas (inside the gate/fence) of chemical plants/refineries to make the opposition go away.

Well, we already can not carry inside of a petrochemical plant. so why would then need it to be exempted? Most places anymore do not allow us drive our personal vehicles into the plants like we did a couple of years ago. Now, contractor businesses is different, but those of us who do work at or for these plants mostly park outside anyway. So why should they put up a fight? If given the chance one this goes through I hope many of us who are the more sought after type employee will find work if we can where the company does not fight us and we rub it into the face of those who do need us. Not easy in these times but given a chance I will do that.

Gary

Another thing I noticed missing is any mention of an employer who tries to restrict an employee from carrying a gun legallly "while on company business" etc. It clearly addresses company-owned vehicles and says carrying inside those vehicles can still be prohibited. But what about employees who rent a vehicle on company dime or who drive their own personal vehicle for company business? I can see companies getting very creative to continue to ensure certain employees cannot carry (not everyone just drives from home to work, parks, goes inside, works, leaves, drives from work to home, Miller time).

Remember folks, baby steps. I am sure the wording on this is crafted to give it the best chance for support and passing. If you we try to force too much down the throats of the legislators, then they will choke. There are organizations and business types that may have enough voice in opposition by their lobbyists to get the bill stalled and inevitably killed if you don't provide them an exception. Unfortunately this will not satisfy the 'I want it all back, and I want it now' crowd, but it will at least chip away at regaining some of our rights.

flintknapper wrote:Also, someone want to 'splain this one to me?


property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease executed before September 1, 2011, that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property.

If farmer Brown executed a mineral lease and demanded a paragraph to keep drilling company employees or oil and gas company employees from having guns on farmer Brown's property, then the employer can prohibit guns in the parking area provided for people working on wells. There was a killer amendment added in the Senate last session that dealt with this, but it was too broad. This is narrower language to deal only with that issue and it won't apply to future leases, i.e. those executed after Sept. 1, 2011.

I did not verify the information we were provided, but we were told that some landowners require a "no guns" provision in leases because drilling or oil company personnel are known to hunt on land under a mineral lease when the landowner does not live on the property.

Chas.

Keith B wrote:Remember folks, baby steps. I am sure the wording on this is crafted to give it the best chance for support and passing. If you we try to force too much down the throats of the legislators, then they will choke. There are organizations and business types that may have enough voice in opposition by their lobbyists to get the bill stalled and inevitably killed if you don't provide them an exception. Unfortunately this will not satisfy the 'I want it all back, and I want it now' crowd, but it will at least chip away at regaining some of our rights.

What is this, try number FOUR?

And at what point does a bill become so neutered (under the guise of Baby Steps/Ammedments) that it is no longer a "step"..... but goes back to crawling?

flintknapper wrote:

Keith B wrote:Remember folks, baby steps. I am sure the wording on this is crafted to give it the best chance for support and passing. If you we try to force too much down the throats of the legislators, then they will choke. There are organizations and business types that may have enough voice in opposition by their lobbyists to get the bill stalled and inevitably killed if you don't provide them an exception. Unfortunately this will not satisfy the 'I want it all back, and I want it now' crowd, but it will at least chip away at regaining some of our rights.

What is this, try number FIVE?

And at what point does a bill become so neutered (under the guise of Baby Steps/Ammedments) that it is no longer a "step"..... but goes back to crawling?

I haven't looked at the wording to compare it to last sessions bill, but don't think it is any different. The only issue with last session was the bill was purposely stalled in Calendars. Then, when it did get pushed out because of phone calls (I talked to McCall personally while he was on the floor about getting it out of committee and to quit sitting on it) it was too late to make the vote due to the chubbing that went on.

jacobsd8195 wrote:So it doesn't apply to school districts... Guess I'll have to contact my representatives with my displeasure to that.

By all means do! Call your Senator's office also. Point out that teachers and other district personnel are no less deserving of the ability to defend themselves driving to and from work than any other employee.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

flintknapper wrote:Also, someone want to 'splain this one to me?


property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease executed before September 1, 2011, that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property.

If farmer Brown executed a mineral lease and demanded a paragraph to keep drilling company employees or oil and gas company employees from having guns on farmer Brown's property, then the employer can prohibit guns in the parking area provided for people working on wells. There was a killer amendment added in the Senate last session that dealt with this, but it was too broad. This is narrower language to deal only with that issue and it won't apply to future leases, i.e. those executed after Sept. 1, 2011.

I did not verify the information we were provided, but we were told that some landowners require a "no guns" provision in leases because drilling or oil company personnel are known to hunt on land under a mineral lease when the landowner does not live on the property.

Chas.

Great explanation, Charles. Thanks.