TexasCHLforum.com

I just want to be sure of what the new parking lot law means for me. I work at a chemical plant and have a chl obviously so i'm good in that aspect, but am i correct in that i can also store a rifle or a shotgun in my locked vehicle? I was told that this was true but when reading the law i didn't see where it specifically says this. Is that why the law says firearms instead of saying handguns? I just want to be clear before i do something i'm not able to.

I believe the law covers all legally owned firearms.

However; I do see exceptions in certain chemical plants.

lowonair wrote:Is that why the law says firearms instead of saying handguns?

Yes.

maxlib wrote:I believe the law covers all legally owned firearms.

However; I do see exceptions in certain chemical plants.

There is the chl rule, but as i read it, there are no weapon restrictions for them. Just wanted to make sure i didn't build a new rifle for nothing.

You are good to go with long guns under the new law provided that you 1) are a direct employee of the company and not a contractor or visitor 2) have a chl and 3) You do not enter the secure area of the plant with your vehicle.

The new law does not require long guns to be concealed but most chemical plants and refineries are requiring that any firearm brought onto company property remain concealed. Many companies are placing some odd restrictions on bringing firearms on site such as firearm declaration forms, requiring that weapons be unloaded prior to entering the property and not loaded again until after you have left the property, ect. Virtually all of the companies will not be posting thier new firearms policies until August 31, so it will be a good idea to check on your company firearms policy on Sep. 1 to see what hoops your company will make you jump through.

I don't see where it states that you have to be a direct employee for chemical plants. I'm a resident contractor so i'm here all the time, not just for temporary work. I haven't heard anything about our site using declaration forms or trying to impose any restrictions.

lowonair wrote:I don't see where it states that you have to be a direct employee for chemical plants. I'm a resident contractor so i'm here all the time, not just for temporary work. I haven't heard anything about our site using declaration forms or trying to impose any restrictions.

Sorry to be the one to inform you, but the law does not protect contractors regardless of being a resident contractor or an outside contractor.

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.

The law only prohibits an employer from prohibiting their employees from storing a firearm. It does not prevent them from barring employees of other companies, visitors, ect from posessing a firearm. There was an amendment that was attempted to be added to the bill to also cover contractors but the author did not support the amendment due to potential for losing votes on the floor so the amendment was tabled.

In other words, if you work for a contractor (We'll use Mundy for an example) and Mundy has the contract at a refinery (We'll use Shell). Mundy can not by law prohibit you from posessing a firearm in a locked personal vehicle. However, Shell can prohibit, by company policy, anyone who is not a Shell employee from entering the property with a firearm. So if a Mundy employee enters Shell property with a firearm, Mundy can not fire that employee for posessing the firearm but Shell can inform Mundy that the employee is no longer allowed back on site. Mundy can then terminate the employee based on the fact that they no longer have work for said employee.

I hope that makes sense. Charles or another lawyer can chime in and explain the issue of contractors as they relate to SB321 and coemployment better than I.

Yeah i kinda figured that after i thought about it. I'm thinking that the client site will still let us and not worry about it but we'll see. This really bums me out now. Maybe it's time for another job. I'm tired of being unarmed and 30 miles from civilization every night. I may just take a chance with it.

canvasbck wrote:However, Shell can prohibit, by company policy, anyone who is not a Shell employee from entering the property with a firearm. So if a Mundy employee enters Shell property with a firearm, Mundy can not fire that employee for posessing the firearm but Shell can inform Mundy that the employee is no longer allowed back on site.

You lost me here. How a can a company prohibit me from carrying on their property according to company policy if I'm not an employee of theirs? This makes no sense at all. Now, they can post a 30.06 sign and that would apply to non-employees.

My employer, not a chemical plant, for another three days, prohibits employees from having our weapons in our private vehicles on company property, but they do nothing to prohibit non-employees.

I know with our client site they can just say you are no longer allowed on site. I think that's what he means.

Prior to SB 321 private property owners could prohibit anyone from entering their property either through verbal notice or written notice consistant with 30.06. The new law only stops the property owner from prohibinting thier employees from bringing firearms onto the property. The law did not change in regard to non-employees.

Having a company policy against firearms posession by non CHL holders (in the case of refineries and chemical plants) and non employees does not carry the trespass penalties since it was not proper 30.06 compliant, it does however give the company the ability to bar an individual from coming back on site. The company is not firing the individual (they can't since they don't work for the client company) but just not allowing them on the property.

Also, what lowonair says is correct, the client company can bar a contractor from the site for any reason.

Sorry for a long answer to a short question.

canvasbck wrote:Prior to SB 321 private property owners could prohibit anyone from entering their property either through verbal notice or written notice consistant with 30.06. The new law only stops the property owner from prohibinting thier employees from bringing firearms onto the property. The law did not change in regard to non-employees.

Having a company policy against firearms posession by non CHL holders (in the case of refineries and chemical plants) and non employees does not carry the trespass penalties since it was not proper 30.06 compliant, it does however give the company the ability to bar an individual from coming back on site. The company is not firing the individual (they can't since they don't work for the client company) but just not allowing them on the property.

Also, what lowonair says is correct, the client company can bar a contractor from the site for any reason.

Sorry for a long answer to a short question.

Okay. I'm with you now, but would a company really ban someone from the site for violating a policy they may not have know about or were even required to follow? I realize we are talking about the hypothetical here, but wouldn't it seem more likely that they would inform the person and contracting company by giving oral notice that if caught again they would be banned and then post 30.06 signs everywhere?

C-dub wrote:

canvasbck wrote:However, Shell can prohibit, by company policy, anyone who is not a Shell employee from entering the property with a firearm. So if a Mundy employee enters Shell property with a firearm, Mundy can not fire that employee for posessing the firearm but Shell can inform Mundy that the employee is no longer allowed back on site.

You lost me here. How a can a company prohibit me from carrying on their property according to company policy if I'm not an employee of theirs? This makes no sense at all.

Suppose a company has a policy that everyone must wear steel toe shoes and/or other safety equipment on site. They can deny entry to people who aren't wearing the required safety gear, even contractors and visitors. If Conrad the Contractor violates the policy and the company finds out, they can tell Conrad to leave and not return. They can also inform Conrad's employer that Conrad is not allowed back on site.

Unfortunately, they can and they have banned people for firearms. There are not 30.06 signs, but it is mentioned in the safety video that everyone must watch before entering the plant. It is also on some non compliant signs that are at the entrance to the plant. Some plants (ours) do not actively look for firearms in the parking lot, but are forced to act when they become aware of one that violates plant policy.

Sometimes the signs are hard to miss.