Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

[LSUTiger]

My employer has the 30.06 sign up. I guess the recently passed Tx Senate Bill 321 wont conflict with 30.06 as long as the gun is locked in the car?

Introduced by state Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), SB 321 is an NRA-backed bill that would prevent employers from enacting and enforcing policies to prohibit employees from storing firearms in their locked private motor vehicles while parked at work.

[The Annoyed Man]

My employer has the 30.06 sign up. I guess the recently passed Tx Senate Bill 321 wont conflict with 30.06 as long as the gun is locked in the car?

Introduced by state Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), SB 321 is an NRA-backed bill that would prevent employers from enacting and enforcing policies to prohibit employees from storing firearms in their locked private motor vehicles while parked at work.

That is correct, with certain narrowly defined exceptions such as the secured parking areas at oil refineries.....stuff like that.

[LSUTiger]

Sorry forgot the link to the bill.....

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB321" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jmra]

If I really wanted to be a jerk, as the owner of a corporation, I could start another corporation (with a different address/P.O. Box) that would then employ all of my current employees. The new corporation would then contract labor to my original corporation. All employees at the original site would then be contractors who do not benefit under the new law.

[i8godzilla]

If I really wanted to be a jerk, as the owner of a corporation, I could start another corporation (with a different address/P.O. Box) that would then employ all of my current employees. The new corporation would then contract labor to my original corporation. All employees at the original site would then be contractors who do not benefit under the new law.

It would be easier to lease the parking lot to a new company. That company could then post the parking lot 30.06. Employees could be required to buy a parking pass from the new company if they wished to park there. The employer could even reimburse the employees' parking fees.

Dare you to bet me that this will not happen....................

[C-dub]

It might happen, but I would also bet that if it did the employer would lose in court if challenged.

[Keith B]

Quite a few other states have passed parking lot laws over the past 3-4 years and we haven't heard of issues in those locations. I doubt many, if any, companies will go through that much trouble to try and find a loophole in the law to work around it. Usually after the initial fight, they just go along with the ruling.

[i8godzilla]

Quite a few other states have passed parking lot laws over the past 3-4 years and we haven't heard of issues in those locations. I doubt many, if any, companies will go through that much trouble to try and find a loophole in the law to work around it. Usually after the initial fight, they just go along with the ruling.

Yes, I agree that most will not go through the trouble. However, I know of two that are HQ in TX that are so anti-2A that they will spend the money to do whatever it takes. Sure they may lose. However, the idea I posted was from one of their senior directors.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If I really wanted to be a jerk, as the owner of a corporation, I could start another corporation (with a different address/P.O. Box) that would then employ all of my current employees. The new corporation would then contract labor to my original corporation. All employees at the original site would then be contractors who do not benefit under the new law.

It would be easier to lease the parking lot to a new company. That company could then post the parking lot 30.06. Employees could be required to buy a parking pass from the new company if they wished to park there. The employer could even reimburse the employees' parking fees.

Dare you to bet me that this will not happen....................

That wouldn't work for at least two reasons. First, TPC §30.06 doesn't apply to a CHL unless they are carrying pursuant to their CHL. Since having a handgun in your car isn't illegal (Motorist Protection Act), you would not be carrying pursuant to your CHL. Also, a person could put the handgun in the truck and it would not be "on or about [their] person" so they wouldn't be "carrying."

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If I really wanted to be a jerk, as the owner of a corporation, I could start another corporation (with a different address/P.O. Box) that would then employ all of my current employees. The new corporation would then contract labor to my original corporation. All employees at the original site would then be contractors who do not benefit under the new law.

Such a persons would not be "contract personnel," they would be "leased employees" and the employer would be subject to SB321.

Chas.

[jmra]

If I really wanted to be a jerk, as the owner of a corporation, I could start another corporation (with a different address/P.O. Box) that would then employ all of my current employees. The new corporation would then contract labor to my original corporation. All employees at the original site would then be contractors who do not benefit under the new law.

Such a persons would not be "contract personnel," they would be "leased employees" and the employer would be subject to SB321.

Chas.

That's good to know.

[Iunnrais]

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?

[C-dub]

If I really wanted to be a jerk, as the owner of a corporation, I could start another corporation (with a different address/P.O. Box) that would then employ all of my current employees. The new corporation would then contract labor to my original corporation. All employees at the original site would then be contractors who do not benefit under the new law.

It would be easier to lease the parking lot to a new company. That company could then post the parking lot 30.06. Employees could be required to buy a parking pass from the new company if they wished to park there. The employer could even reimburse the employees' parking fees.

Dare you to bet me that this will not happen....................

That wouldn't work for at least two reasons. First, TPC §30.06 doesn't apply to a CHL unless they are carrying pursuant to their CHL. Since having a handgun in your car isn't illegal (Motorist Protection Act), you would not be carrying pursuant to your CHL. Also, a person could put the handgun in the truck and it would not be "on or about [their] person" so they wouldn't be "carrying."

Chas.

Hello Charles.

In one or more older threads the discussion of a CHL holder who forgets their license could carry under the MPA was discussed. It was my contention that as CHL holders we cannot carry under the MPA. I don't remember if you ever weighed in on those discussions. Are you saying that it is possible for a CHL holder to legally have a gun in their car without their CHL on them under the MPA?

[Katygunnut]

It might happen, but I would also bet that if it did the employer would lose in court if challenged.

Not only that, but under this scenario, there would be no risk of your employer searching your car (which is not on their property) and discovering the weapon in the first place.

[C-dub]

It might happen, but I would also bet that if it did the employer would lose in court if challenged.

Not only that, but under this scenario, there would be no risk of your employer searching your car (which is not on their property) and discovering the weapon in the first place.

Oh, that's beautiful! Bonus.