TexasCHLforum.com

tuckerdog1 wrote:As an earlier poster said, now the employer will just find some other reason to terminate you ( the real reason being the firearm, but that would not be the 'stated' reason ). Being a right to work state, would an employer even have to give a reason ?

I'm not feeling real proteceted here.

Tuckerdog1

The same thing could be said for terminating someone because of age, race, religious affiliation, gender, physical handicap, etc. Employers terminate people everyday on a pretext to conceal the real reason. They also get sued everyday and they often lose. Sometimes it's easy to prove the plaintiff's case, sometimes it's not. That's the way it is with any lawsuit.

Obviously, it's easier to get away with it when terminating a bad or marginal employee than with a good employee, especially one with good employee evaluations, good performance, and or long tenure.

An employer doesn't have to give an employee a reason for terminating them, but when the employee files for unemployment benefits, the employer either has to fight it as a "termination for cause" and state the clear reason, or let them collect benefits. This doesn't stop the employee from suing either.

Chas.

tuckerdog1 wrote:

I understand that Perry has 10 days to sign or veto the bill otherwise it automatically becomes law

Above was posted 5/31. So is the parking lot bill a done deal? Carved in stone? On 9/1 I can't get fired for having a firearm in my locked car at work?
I'd have thought the media would have mentioned it, but I didn't hear a peep.

Thanks,
Tuckerdog1

Not quite yet. The only way it won't become law on Sept. 1st is if Governor Perry vetoes the Bill, but that's not going to happen.

Chas.

tbrown wrote:In layman's terms, is it correct to say the parking lot bill doesn't change where it's legal to have a gun in a car or truck, for 95% (or more) of us? What it does is prohibit an employer from firing an employee or taking other disciplinary action for having a gun in their personal vehicle.

You are correct, except I believe the "no guns" provisions adopted by many employers, especially large employers, means SB321 will impact a large percentage of the Texas working population. If by 95% you mean that it does not impact us outside of our employment, then I agree with that also.

Chas.

DallasCHL wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DallasCHL wrote:There is no analysis attached to the conference committee report.

I know there isn't; that's what I was pointing out to you in response to your statement that "Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:". The analysis you quoted has nothing to do with the committee report that became the final version of SB766. Also, you missed different verbiage that appears on the first page of the analysis that reads differently; "C.S.S.B. 321 seeks to prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing the firearm or ammunition in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking area the employer provides for employees, with certain exceptions. There is no mention of CHL's here.

I didn't miss any verbiage. The two statements give different impressions, but do not directly conflict. As I said, the language that I posted is in the House committee report. You correctly point out that the conference committee report is silent, thus there is no conflict between the two. The relevant language in the bill did not change. The analysis I posted is part of the legislative history, and may be considered by a court interpreting this law. I don't know if there is testimony or debate that clarifies this point; I hope there is. You may argue that the law is clear and whoever wrote the report just read it wrong. I don't know if that's a winning argument, but as I said, I wouldn't be willing to risk it.

I understand that you are personally invested in this. I'm not the only person I have spoken to who sees the ambiguity. Even if you think the bill is crystal clear, you will still have to contend with the legislative history.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There's nothing ambiguous about SB321. It's written precisely how bills/codes are written. You continue to ignore the importance of the distinguishing term "otherwise" and your interpretation could only have merit of that word were not in the bill. (That's precisely why it was included.)

I'm not ignoring anything. I've read every word. Many laws are ambiguous.

I give up, other than saying you don't know how to read statutes and you most certainly are ignoring the word "otherwise." The use of that term was specifically to distinguish those gun owners from CHL's. Tell us your version as to why "otherwise" is included in the phrase following the CHL portion.

Believe what you will, but you're not going to use TexasCHLforum as a vehicle to deter millions of Texans from enjoying the protections of SB321.

Chas.

DallasCHL wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DallasCHL wrote:Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders. Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:

"C.S.S.B. 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a concealed handgun license issued by the Department of Public Safety and who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is lawfully authorized to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Hopefully there's a way to fix this before 2013.

Where did you find the quoted language? The latest analysis is the one for the House version of the Bill and it is the same on this point as is the Senate analysis. You can find both here. The conference report does not contain this language, nor do I see it in the comparison. It can be found here.

Chas.

There is no analysis attached to the conference committee report.

I know there isn't; that's what I was pointing out to you in response to your statement that "Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:". The analysis you quoted has nothing to do with the committee report that became the final version of SB766. Also, you missed different verbiage that appears on the first page of the analysis that reads differently; "C.S.S.B. 321 seeks to prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing the firearm or ammunition in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking area the employer provides for employees, with certain exceptions. There is no mention of CHL's here.

DallasCHL wrote:All that matters is what the courts think it means, and it is ambiguous enough that if I didn't have a CHL I wouldn't test it. If the law is supposed to apply to everyone lawfully possessing a firearm, I see no reason for the CHL language in 56.021.

There's nothing ambiguous about SB321. It's written precisely how bills/codes are written. You continue to ignore the importance of the distinguishing term "otherwise" and your interpretation could only have merit of that word were not in the bill. (That's precisely why it was included.)

It's also important to note that Texas Labor Code §52.062(a)(2)(F) treats chemical manufacturing plants and refineries differently in that it limits the protection of the bill to CHL's. If your interpretation of SB321 was correct and that none of its provisions apply to anyone other than CHL's, then §52.062(a)(2)(F) would be meaningless.

Chas.

DallasCHL wrote:Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders. Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:

"C.S.S.B. 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a concealed handgun license issued by the Department of Public Safety and who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is lawfully authorized to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Hopefully there's a way to fix this before 2013.

Where did you find the quoted language? The latest analysis is the one for the House version of the Bill and it is the same on this point as is the Senate analysis. You can find both here. The conference report does not contain this language, nor do I see it in the comparison. It can be found here.

Chas.

DallasCHL wrote:

Paragrouper wrote:

DallasCHL wrote:

apostate wrote:

rm9792 wrote:What all does the parking lot bill encompass?

Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area.
Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants.
Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders.

That is not accurate.

"A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

I understand that you're reading the first part of the section as reciting a list with three elements. That's one of at least two possible was to read the law, which is why I said it's badly written. But the way you're reading it, "who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" is redundant or meaningless. A CHL holder lawfully possessing a firearm is included in the second or the three supposed groups (unless you think it refers to CHL holders who are unlawfully possessing a firearm?). This violates the basic principle of statutory construction, which is that all the words have meaning.

As I said, whoever wrote the House committee report read it to apply only to CHL holders. The section applies to CHL holders who are otherwise (i.e., notwithstanding this section) lawfully possessing a firearm or ammunition.

Thankfully, you are mistaken. The bill is not poorly written, it is perfectly clear and the conference committee report does not mean what you read into it. There is a reason it was written that way, and the timing thereof, but I'm not going into that. The simple fact is the comma means something, as does the inclusion of the word "otherwise," and the structure is commonly used in codes and statutes.

If your interpretation were accurate, then you would be correct in saying that the independent operative phrase "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm" would be redundant. Rules of statutory interpretation demand that redundancy be read out of a code or statute, if possible, and that certainly would apply here. More importantly, you are missing the significance of the word "otherwise" in the phrase "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm." The word "otherwise" distinguishes the phrase from the prior phrase that refers to CHL's.

The protection of SB321 applies to anyone and everyone who legally possess firearms. The only exceptions are chemical manufacturers and refineries where the protection applies only to CHLs. You are correct that SB321 applies only to employees.

Chas.

megs wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Parking lots, too? I thought that'd passed.

Not yet. It still has a chance but it's not a done deal.

It's not merely a "chance." Absent a catastrophic meltdown, parking lots will be fine.

Chas.

Millerk420 wrote:You have got to be kidding me.. ugh.. COME ON Senate.. don't Senators have people to read and know the rules of the bills before they vote on stuff...

Senate and House rules don't mirror one another. Usually it isn't a problem, but on controversial bills, it sometimes is.

Chas.

SB5 passed the House today with amendments. SB5's provisions were added to SB1581 after Sen. Zaffirini pulled her bill down. It was the SB5 provisions that were added that made campus-carry germane to SB1581. After campus-carry was added to SB1581, SB5 was stripped of the Wentworth amendment. Now that SB5 has passed without the campus-carry provisions, much of SB1581 is unnecessary.

Parking lots will go to conference likely with favorable people; the Senate author, House author and one other. Anything could happen but we should be fine.

Chas.