TexasCHLforum.com

Can anyone tell me about the legal 30.06 signage, where my employer(halliburton) has placed a sign that forbids concealed carry on the property. It it 3 feet by 4 feet and is in black lettering on a white background with no symbols at all. I was told that because the company has a chemical plant somewhere in east Texas , they can forbid carry of firearms under SB 321, on ALL company property . Is this true? Our camp is mainly frac and cement work, and lots of questions have been asked about parking lot carry. Can someone shine a light on this, or will I have to park on the street right of way to be legal?

They can forbid you to carry inside the building, but unless they meet all three conditions spelled out in SB321 then this facility cannot prevent you from keeping your gun in your vehicle in the parking lot.

C-dub wrote:They can forbid you to carry inside the building, but unless they meet all three conditions spelled out in SB321 then this facility cannot prevent you from keeping your gun in your vehicle in the parking lot.

When I was reading the law, it looked like for the three conditions relating to chemical and petrochemical companies, one is for the company as a whole and two are for specific facilities.

1. The company has an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code.
2. The primary business conducted at the facility is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials.
3. The parking lot at the facility is inside of a secured and restricted area.

If all 3 apply, they can restrict someone with a CHL from having a gun in their car in the parking lot, but they only have to satisfy #1 and #2 to prohibit someone without a CHL.

C-dub wrote:They can forbid you to carry inside the building, but unless they meet all three conditions spelled out in SB321 then this facility cannot prevent you from keeping your gun in your vehicle in the parking lot.

I have a different take on this. SB321 amends the labor code. The company cannot fire you because you, if you have a CHL, have a weapon on you car in the parking lot. That's fine. However, when they post a 30.06 sign on the parking lot, it is now the Penal Code that is violated. The way I see it, you cannot be fired, but you could be arrested. I believe that SB321 left a loophole that some companies are now exploiting. IANAL so I might be all wrong, but that is the way I see it. I believe company lawyers are seeing the same way because I keep seeing posts here of people indicating that their companies are now posting the parking lots with 30.06 signs. An easy fix would be to change 30.06 from "property" to "premises". That would mean that parking lots could not be posted. As I said IANAL.

JJVP wrote:An easy fix would be to change 30.06 from "property" to "premises". That would mean that parking lots could not be posted. As I said IANAL.

That would also mean companies and individuals couldn't prohibit CHL anywhere outside buildings, including courtyards, patios, green space, oil and gas leases, timber land, etc.

JJVP wrote:

C-dub wrote:They can forbid you to carry inside the building, but unless they meet all three conditions spelled out in SB321 then this facility cannot prevent you from keeping your gun in your vehicle in the parking lot.

I have a different take on this. SB321 amends the labor code. The company cannot fire you because you, if you have a CHL, have a weapon on you car in the parking lot. That's fine. However, when they post a 30.06 sign on the parking lot, it is now the Penal Code that is violated. The way I see it, you cannot be fired, but you could be arrested. I believe that SB321 left a loophole that some companies are now exploiting. IANAL so I might be all wrong, but that is the way I see it. I believe company lawyers are seeing the same way because I keep seeing posts here of people indicating that their companies are now posting the parking lots with 30.06 signs. An easy fix would be to change 30.06 from "property" to "premises". That would mean that parking lots could not be posted. As I said IANAL.

IANAL, but my personal view on this is that 30.06 on a parking lot doesn't apply to a gun kept in your vehicle. A 30.06 sign only applies to someone carrying under the authority of their CHL. A CHL gives you an exemption to the crime of unlawfully carrying a weapon (gun) in PC46.02. It's not a crime under PC46.02 to have a gun in your own vehicle. You don't need an exemption or the authority of your CHL to do something that is not otherwise illegal. Therefore, I would say you're not carrying under the authority of your CHL when you are in your own vehicle and the 30.06 sign wouldn't apply.

Brian

This sign applies to people who aren't aren't cops and aren't carrying under the authority of a CHL.

Lambda Force wrote:This sign applies to people who aren't aren't cops and aren't carrying under the authority of a CHL.

Can you post the statute that says that, please?

Please research this topic on this forum. It has been discussed at least a few times and commented on by some very knowledgeable members. SB321 prohibits an employer from having a policy that prohibits an employee from keeping their gun in their vehicle on the company's parking lot. It does not prevent a company from prohibiting someone from carrying a gun inside a building. The company may post a 30.06 sign at the entrance to a parking lot, but it would not apply to an employee. Here are a few threads on this matter.

viewtopic.php?f=110&t=45388&hilit=SB321 ... ot+company" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48593&hilit=SB321+p ... ot+company" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48504&hilit=SB321+p ... ot+company" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48320&p=595022&hili ... ny#p595022" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=48080&hilit=SB321+ ... ot+company" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46515&hilit=SB321+p ... ot+company" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pawpaw wrote:Can you post the statute that says that, please?

(a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property

There are two key points.
1. Property. Not premises.
2. No specific language is required for signs.

You're welcome.

C-dub wrote:The company may post a 30.06 sign at the entrance to a parking lot, but it would not apply to an employee.

It doesn't apply to employees, except for the exceptions in the law.

It does apply to people who are not employees, like customers and visitors and maybe employees of tenants.

Lambda Force wrote:

C-dub wrote:The company may post a 30.06 sign at the entrance to a parking lot, but it would not apply to an employee.

It doesn't apply to employees, except for the exceptions in the law.

It does apply to people who are not employees, like customers and visitors and maybe employees of tenants.

Exactly. And the way SB321 is written it would also not apply to employees that do not have a CHL, but are otherwise legal to possess a handgun.

C-dub wrote:Exactly. And the way SB321 is written it would also not apply to employees that do not have a CHL, but are otherwise legal to possess a handgun.

It looks like the only difference is employers can prohibit someone without a CHL from parking inside the secure area if there's a gun in the car, but they have to allow CHL to park inside the secure area.

Just so there's no confusion I'm talking about employers with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code and a facility where the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, and the employee isn't driving a company car, and other details.

Lambda Force wrote:

C-dub wrote:Exactly. And the way SB321 is written it would also not apply to employees that do not have a CHL, but are otherwise legal to possess a handgun.

It looks like the only difference is employers can prohibit someone without a CHL from parking inside the secure area if there's a gun in the car, but they have to allow CHL to park inside the secure area.

Just so there's no confusion I'm talking about employers with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code and a facility where the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, and the employee isn't driving a company car, and other details.

Now I'm confused. SB321 says someone with a CHL or who can otherwise legally possess a handgun. Wouldn't that mean anyone carrying in their car under the MPA? What do you mean by the text in red? I thought that even a CHL could not park within the secured area with a gun. Or are you talking about a separate secured area outside of the secured parking lot not within the same fence as the plant?

I work for a large defense contractor and I can assure you we have proper 30.06 signs at the entrances to parking lots and all entrances to the facilities. They sent out a memo stating that the law allowed CHL persons to have firearms locked in their vehicles in accordance with the new law in Texas. This only applied to Texas facilities and beleive me when I say if they could have found a loophole to exploit to keep firearms out of the parking lots they would have!