TexasCHLforum.com

apostate wrote:They have private property rights too. You don't have to consent to the search. They don't have to let you on their property.

Pretty much. Sad thing is that my company tried to buy the building a couple of years back. The owner was willing to sell to us but there is a 3rd party with 1st rights if it ever sells. That party indicated that they would buy it out from under my company so we ended up leasing several floors from the owner instead.

Its an office building with a gated parking lot. Badge access to both the parking lot and past the lobby is controlled by a security company contracted by the building owners.

No, no 30.06 anywhere on property.

Well the problem there is that the property owner maintains that they have the right to search any person, vehicle or property that comes on site at anytime. Refusal of a search by security gets you a one way trip off property permanently. (they actually threaten to proscecute for trespass if you refuse the search). Not being allowed on property would mean that I would be permanently unable to report for work... So while it may be legal for me to have it in my vehicle, it would still cost me my job if ever discovered. I would actually expect the property owner to request my company to terminate any violaters. They have already expressed similar requests for simple parking lot violation.

Edit: my company does close to 1bn in business with the property owner each year. Our board tends to bend over backwards to keep them happy.

Well we got clarification of the policies for our location from the owning company today. The policy is that employees of the property owner are able to keep firearms in their vehicle. Employees of companies leasing space in the buildings are expected to follow all restrictions imposed by the property owner. The property owner considers all employees of the leasing companies to be contractors for the purposes of SB 321

Agreed. Just double checked our employee handbook and it is deliberately vague on what constitutes an offense.

"To ensure orderly operations and provide the best possible work environment, <XYZ> expects employees to follow rules of conduct that will protect the interests and safety of all employees and the organization.

It is not possible to list all forms of behavior that are considered unacceptable in the workplace.

Although employment with <XYZ> is based on mutual consent, both the employee and the Company have the right to terminate employment at-will, with or without cause or advance notice."

Hi Keith,

It's a little more complicated than that. Company B doesn't provide staff (aside from the odd consultant/pm for joint projects) in lieu of staff, it provides partitioned access to Company A to infrastructure owned by Company B. I sent a PM with some details to Charles.

Would the same apply where Corp A contracts Corp B to provide X services where Corp A then leases several floors in it's facility to Corp B for Corp B to run it's local business (which includes providing similar ervices to companies other than Corp A using the leased floors)? Or do the policies of Corp A preventing any person on site from possessing weapons on site (including parking lots in vehicles) override SB321 for the employees of Corp B?