Parking lot Bill question

[Mike1951]

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(1) authorize a person 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 to possess a firearm or ammunition on any property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is prohibited by state or federal law; or
(2) apply to:
(A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee's duties;
(B) a school district;
(C) an open-enrollment charter school, as defined by Section 5.001, Education Code;
(D) a private school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code;
(E) property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or
(F) property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who stores 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 that is outside of a secured and restricted area:
(i) that contains the physical plant;
(ii) that is not open to the public; and
(iii) the ingress into which is constantly monitored by security personnel.

[wgoforth]

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(1) authorize a person 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 to possess a firearm or ammunition on any property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is prohibited by state or federal law; or
(2) apply to:
(A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee's duties;
(B) a school district;
(C) an open-enrollment charter school, as defined by Section 5.001, Education Code;
(D) a private school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code;
(E) property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or
(F) property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who stores 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 that is outside of a secured and restricted area:
(i) that contains the physical plant;
(ii) that is not open to the public; and
(iii) the ingress into which is constantly monitored by security personnel.

Thank you, yes... I guess what I should have asked for was the Federal law prohibiting carry at "Critical infrastructure."

[Bart]

Thank you, yes... I guess what I should have asked for was the Federal law prohibiting carry at "Critical infrastructure."

I hear a lot about that but I haven't seen the actual law passed by Congress, as opposed to some agency's rule.

[wgoforth]

Thank you, yes... I guess what I should have asked for was the Federal law prohibiting carry at "Critical infrastructure."

I hear a lot about that but I haven't seen the actual law passed by Congress, as opposed to some agency's rule.

Yup, that is what I have been googling to no avail myself.

[rm9792]

I do recal reading about infrastructure in Texas law. I was concerned about the Telecommunicatiosn switching facility part, as that is a big problem for me. Has that been removed?

[Keith B]

I do recal reading about infrastructure in Texas law. I was concerned about the Telecommunicatiosn switching facility part, as that is a big problem for me. Has that been removed?

TPC 30.05 (7) addresses a Critical Infrastructure Facitiy. TPC 30.05 does not apply to a license holder who is carrying as far as the gun goes, that is 30.06. So, there is no difference for us than any regular tresspass unless the location is posted 30.06.

For the parking lot law (SB321), as an employee of a telecommunications business you can keep a firearm in your locked personal vehice in the company parking lot. You may still be prohobited from removing it from your vehicle or carrying it into the building by 30.06 or company policy.

[JP171]

there is no federal law that concerns critical infrastructure, there is one that covers foreign free trade zones and they are not the same thing. the reason that the critical infrastructure thing is in texas law is two fold, first refineries and chem plants have alot of clout in the legislature and got it added, and the Feebs have this thing stuck in their heads that terrorists of homegrown and foreign persuasion will attack critical infrastructure sites, they won't and AQ never had any plans to do so, too many safeguards and no return, as in no OMYGAWWD value. if there is not reaction other than darn BP popped again the terror organizations have no reason to attack. its alot of misguided feely good stuff that the fed is famous for

now back to the regularly scheduled topic on this thread

[CoreyI35]

SB321 prohibits an employer, except a refinery or school, from making rules about you keeping a legally owned firearm in your locked vehicle. Your employer still has the right to prohibit you from removing the gun from the vehicle and carrying in the parking lot or building.

So, depending on exactly what the instructor was talking about, if he was referring to the building, then they were correct. If talking about IN your car in the parking lot, then they were incorrect.

, but unfortunately there was no penalty included for non-compliance. So, many companies, mine included, have not changed a thing in their policy and are just going to wait and see what if anything happens to a company that doesn't comply with the new law.

It was my understanding, from reading the bill, is that compliance with the law is what gave the employers immunity from liability. Thus, no compliance = liability.

[C-dub]

SB321 prohibits an employer, except a refinery or school, from making rules about you keeping a legally owned firearm in your locked vehicle. Your employer still has the right to prohibit you from removing the gun from the vehicle and carrying in the parking lot or building.

So, depending on exactly what the instructor was talking about, if he was referring to the building, then they were correct. If talking about IN your car in the parking lot, then they were incorrect.

, but unfortunately there was no penalty included for non-compliance. So, many companies, mine included, have not changed a thing in their policy and are just going to wait and see what if anything happens to a company that doesn't comply with the new law.

It was my understanding, from reading the bill, is that compliance with the law is what gave the employers immunity from liability. Thus, no compliance = liability.

That might be true. I doubt it, but I don't know.

[apostate]

Lack of immunity doesn't necessarily translate into liability.

[goose]

It was my understanding, from reading the bill, is that compliance with the law is what gave the employers immunity from liability. Thus, no compliance = liability.

As an at will state, would there be liability? I suppose if the pink slip actually said something like "dismissed for firearm in car" you might have some case for something. It would be a rare HR department that would be that stupid. It is Texas; could a person win a case based on 2A discrimination? I would love to think so but I don't see it happening.

[C-dub]

It was my understanding, from reading the bill, is that compliance with the law is what gave the employers immunity from liability. Thus, no compliance = liability.

As an at will state, would there be liability? I suppose if the pink slip actually said something like "dismissed for firearm in car" you might have some case for something. It would be a rare HR department that would be that stupid. It is Texas; could a person win a case based on 2A discrimination? I would love to think so but I don't see it happening.

Due to the parking lot law I think it would be very easy to win a case on those grounds. I would be surprised if a company did not put in a person's file a reason why they were terminated. My company, in order to protect themselves from discrimination lawsuits that we're more familiar with, is meticulous about documenting the reason why they terminate someone. It usually takes a verbal warning, written warning, and a final written warning before someone can be terminated. Unless the infraction is really egregious it seems like it is sometimes harder to get rid of someone at my company than the USPS.

[goose]

Due to the parking lot law I think it would be very easy to win a case on those grounds. I would be surprised if a company did not put in a person's file a reason why they were terminated. My company, in order to protect themselves from discrimination lawsuits that we're more familiar with, is meticulous about documenting the reason why they terminate someone. It usually takes a verbal warning, written warning, and a final written warning before someone can be terminated. Unless the infraction is really egregious it seems like it is sometimes harder to get rid of someone at my company than the USPS.

The company I work for is the same. Lots of documentation, etc. I just remember the case last month were a law firm let go 20+ people for wearing orange shirts. I definitely hope that you're right. Could there be more liability if our companies are incorporated out of another state?

[apostate]

Are we talking about the Sec. 52.063 immunity or something else?