Employer Parking Lots question

[e-bil]

I know the bill was passed in 2011 in regard to plants still being able to ban employees inside the grounds. Does this ban include visitors parking in either the employee lot or in designated visitor parking on the premises?

[JP171]

if the parking lot is a secured and has limited access yes you are prohibited. If the parking lot is outside of the fence and isn't a limited access lot then no they cannot prohibit weapons

[Charles L. Cotton]

I know the bill was passed in 2011 in regard to plants still being able to ban employees inside the grounds. Does this ban include visitors parking in either the employee lot or in designated visitor parking on the premises?

The so-called employer parking lot law protects only employees, so private companies can prohibit firearms on the property. Doing so can be problematic, but that's not your question.

Chas.

[e-bil]

My question is around a visitor who is a CHL to the plant who is a contractor, customer, or otherwise not a direct employee parking at the plant in a visitor space. This is not someone who is an employee of the plant.

[Unicorn Rancher]

My question is around a visitor who is a CHL to the plant who is a contractor, customer, or otherwise not a direct employee parking at the plant in a visitor space. This is not someone who is an employee of the plant.

If they're not employees they're in the same boat as before the law passed. Private property owners can still ban John Q. Public from having a gun on the property.

[Wodathunkit]

Visitor parking falls into the same criteria, it is on the company property. Typically the plants also fall into the federal trade commission (FTC) so it reaches above the standard 30.06. I violate this law everyday. . It's a real shame too. I can tell you which laws I'm violating, the people who would cause harm can't, and don't read the signs.

[ScottDLS]

Visitor parking falls into the same criteria, it is on the company property. Typically the plants also fall into the federal trade commission (FTC) so it reaches above the standard 30.06. I violate this law everyday. . It's a real shame too. I can tell you which laws I'm violating, the people who would cause harm can't, and don't read the signs.

I believe it would be difficult to get convicted of crime if as a visitor you have a CHL and leave a HANDGUN in the car. You may however be banned from the property if they find out.

TXPC 46.02 (unlawful carrying of weapons) does not apply because of the exemption 46.02(a-1) "MPA".
TXPC 30.06 (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN) doesn't apply even if they are properly posted because you are not carrying under authority of your CHL...as long as the handgun remains in the car.
TXPC 30.05 (CRIMINAL TRESPASS) has a DEFENSE

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was
forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

Note the DEFENSE is available if you were "carrying" the gun and the license. Not carrying UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the license, which you would not be unless you exited the car with a gun.

I'm not sure why the Federal Trade Commission would have any criminal jurisdiction over a production plant, unless it was related to anti-trust violations in interstate commerce, which seems unlikely.

[EyeToEye]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I have another question regarding employer parking lots. I went through six pages of search items but did not find the answer so I figured I would ask.

We had an incident where the employer brought dogs in to sniff vehicles in the parking lot for drugs and firearms. The dog hit on a vehicle resulting in a vehicle search. The search revealed a handgun in the vehicle. The employee that was the owner of the vehicle was asked to leave and was told that it was illegal for him to have a firearm in the vehicle since company policy prohibits it. The employee mentioned the 2011 parking lot law and was told that it only applies to CHL holders.

I have read the language of the bill and need a little clarification. The bill states:

"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."

Does the bold underlined text above reference only CHL holders or is it referring to anyone lawfully possessing a firearm even non CHL holders?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I have another question regarding employer parking lots. I went through six pages of search items but did not find the answer so I figured I would ask.

We had an incident where the employer brought dogs in to sniff vehicles in the parking lot for drugs and firearms. The dog hit on a vehicle resulting in a vehicle search. The search revealed a handgun in the vehicle. The employee that was the owner of the vehicle was asked to leave and was told that it was illegal for him to have a firearm in the vehicle since company policy prohibits it. The employee mentioned the 2011 parking lot law and was told that it only applies to CHL holders.

I have read the language of the bill and need a little clarification. The bill states:

"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."

Does the bold underlined text above reference only CHL holders or is it referring to anyone lawfully possessing a firearm even non CHL holders?

The protection is available to anyone who lawfully possesses firearms. The Code is clear, although some intellectually dishonest people deny it. Below is a post I made discussing this very issue.

Chas.

The question as to whether SB321 (employer parking lots) applies only to CHL’s or to everyone who lawfully possesses a handgun is being discussed not only here on TexasCHLforum, but on at least one other gun board as well. Hopefully I can settle this issue once and for all by providing proof that SB321 does cover everyone, not just CHL’s.

As I have stated several times, the language of SB321 is absolutely clear and unequivocal. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say the bill is ambiguous on the issue of who is protected by this Bill. To answer the question, we look to the legislative history of SB321. The first two questions to ask when reviewing and evaluating the legislative history are 1) “was there an amendment addressing the issue in question[?]"; and 2) "was the issue in question discussed during floor debate?” The answer to both of these threshold questions is yes.

Rep. Harold Dutton (D - Houston) offered Amendment 6 that would have amended SB321 so that it would apply only to CHL’s. The Amendment attempted to do so by “striking lines 14 - 16, and substituting ‘from transporting or storing the firearm that the person is licensed to carry and ammunition for that firearm in a locked,’.” Lines 14 - 16 that Rep. Dutton wanted to delete read "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," Amendment 6 failed when Rep. Kleinschmidt’s motion to table it prevailed. The failed attempt to amend SB321 to narrow it to cover only CHL's is conclusive proof that the Bill is not limited to CHL's and any/every court in the state would so hold.

The hearing in which all of this occurred took place on May 3rd, during the afternoon session. Rep. Dutton first brought up the issue of SB321 applying only to CHL’s at 4:25:03 on the video. He makes it clear that, to his dismay, SB321 applied to everyone who lawfully possesses a firearm, not merely CHL’s. An hour and a half later, Rep. Dutton offered Amendment 6 and discussions on his amendment appear at 6:03:10 until 6:16:35 when his Amendment was tabled.

Here are links to the documents and video proving that SB321 applies to everyone who lawfully possesses firearms, not merely CHL’s.

House Committee Report on SB321 that was up for floor debate on May 3rd;

Rep. Dutton Amendment 6 that would have narrowed SB321 to apply only to CHL’s (Pg. 2730 in the Journal; Pg. 48 in the link)

Here is a link to the House Chamber Video. Select the May 3rd afternoon session (1:00pm - 10:38pm) and you will find the discussions I cited at the times set out: 4:25:03 to 4:25:30; and 6:03:10 to 6:16:55.

The bottom line is this; SB321 is not limited to CHL’s. Even if the language of SB321 was ambiguous, which it is not, the legislative history of this Bill is abundantly clear on this issue.

Chas.

[EyeToEye]

Thanks Charles, much appreciated!

[EyeToEye]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I have another question regarding employer parking lots. I went through six pages of search items but did not find the answer so I figured I would ask.

We had an incident where the employer brought dogs in to sniff vehicles in the parking lot for drugs and firearms. The dog hit on a vehicle resulting in a vehicle search. The search revealed a handgun in the vehicle. The employee that was the owner of the vehicle was asked to leave and was told that it was illegal for him to have a firearm in the vehicle since company policy prohibits it. The employee mentioned the 2011 parking lot law and was told that it only applies to CHL holders.

I have read the language of the bill and need a little clarification. The bill states:

"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."

Does the bold underlined text above reference only CHL holders or is it referring to anyone lawfully possessing a firearm even non CHL holders?

The protection is available to anyone who lawfully possesses firearms. The Code is clear, although some intellectually dishonest people deny it. Below is a post I made discussing this very issue.

Chas.

Well it seems that disciplinary action is being taken against the employee. The employer has stated that their interpretation of the law, only applying to CHL holders, has been confirmed by the company attorney. Also for clarification, to my knowledge the company does not fall under any of the exceptions. I know from Charles' writings that there is no separate cause for action stated in the law. So I guess the employee's only avenue is to accept the disciplinary action and follow the company interpretation of the law even though it is incorrect.

Anyone know of any declaratory judgement actions for instances such as this or actions the employee can take at this point?

[jsenner]

sounds like it would be worthwhile to gather up all the info charles provided, give it to them, tell them they're wrong, and if they proceed he'll sue them for any/all costs associated with fighting it. I don't know his/her specific situation, but man, that's one of those things worth going after, to me.

[Rhino1]

I am in industrial sales and all my customers are refineries or chemical plants. I rarely drive into the plant but have been known to have a gun in my vehicle since I am only in the visitor parking lot. If the plant even has a 30.06 sign (not all do), it is on the fence to the refinery. The parking lot is not posted in the case of any of my customers. I think/hope I am legal. I would never drive in if I had a gun in the vehicle as I do want to abide by the law.

One of my customers is ExxonMobil in Baytown. Their signs for entry to their property are interesting. They say that firearms are prohibited "except where allowed by law". I have always taken this as an acknowledgement of the parking lot bill. That said, I wouldn't have a problem having a gun in the truck at two of the locations. In neither case am I passing a guard house. However, there is one that allows "partial" entry (access to an admin building inside the fence but separated by another access point to the process units) has a random vehicle search procedure upon exit. I never carry at that location because while I might be legal, I would never be allowed entry to XOM after that.

[Keith B]

I am in industrial sales and all my customers are refineries or chemical plants. I rarely drive into the plant but have been known to have a gun in my vehicle since I am only in the visitor parking lot. If the plant even has a 30.06 sign (not all do), it is on the fence to the refinery. The parking lot is not posted in the case of any of my customers. I think/hope I am legal. I would never drive in if I had a gun in the vehicle as I do want to abide by the law.

One of my customers is ExxonMobil in Baytown. Their signs for entry to their property are interesting. They say that firearms are prohibited "except where allowed by law". I have always taken this as an acknowledgement of the parking lot bill. That said, I wouldn't have a problem having a gun in the truck at two of the locations. In neither case am I passing a guard house. However, there is one that allows "partial" entry (access to an admin building inside the fence but separated by another access point to the process units) has a random vehicle search procedure upon exit. I never carry at that location because while I might be legal, I would never be allowed entry to XOM after that.

The parking lot law does not apply to you as you are not an employee. You only need be concerned with the area covered by 30.06 as a non-employee. If the visitor parking lot is posted, then you cannot have a gun as a CHL. 30.06 only applies to CHL, SO, some say that if the parking lot is not posted with generic no-guns signs as well, then you can keep it in your vehicle. However, there is no case law on this, so it could be an issue if caught with a firearm in your vehicle.

[nightmare]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I have another question regarding employer parking lots. I went through six pages of search items but did not find the answer so I figured I would ask.

We had an incident where the employer brought dogs in to sniff vehicles in the parking lot for drugs and firearms. The dog hit on a vehicle resulting in a vehicle search. The search revealed a handgun in the vehicle. The employee that was the owner of the vehicle was asked to leave and was told that it was illegal for him to have a firearm in the vehicle since company policy prohibits it. The employee mentioned the 2011 parking lot law and was told that it only applies to CHL holders.

I have read the language of the bill and need a little clarification. The bill states:

"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."

Does the bold underlined text above reference only CHL holders or is it referring to anyone lawfully possessing a firearm even non CHL holders?

The protection is available to anyone who lawfully possesses firearms. The Code is clear, although some intellectually dishonest people deny it.

It's almost as clear as "shall not be infringed" but look how many intellectually dishonest people deny that.