TexasCHLforum.com

Mike1951 wrote:I would like to pick a nit here regarding whether this would apply to non-CHL.

Sec.A52.061.AARESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO
OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION.

(a) 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,

(d)AAThis section does not prohibit a public or private
employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm

(e)AAThis section does not prohibit an employer from
prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed
handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or who
otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm

(g)AAThis section does not 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

Sections (d) & (e) contain a very important OR that is absent from sections (a) & (g).

(a) & (g) could be interpreted as "a CHL, who lawfully possesses a firearm".

(d) & (e) could be interpreted as "a CHL, OR (someone) who lawfully possesses a firearm".

I find the inconsistency troubling.

I see what you are saying, but we are okay; this bill covers all lawful possession.

§52.061(a) does not have the "or" you mention because the sentence has three alternatives in a string, each of them being an independent statutory element; "[1] . . . employee who holds a license to carry . . ., [2] who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or [3] who lawfully possesses ammunition . . ." Although it wouldn't be grammatically incorrect to include another "or" between the CHL portion and the "otherwise lawfully possesses" phrases, it would not be common sentence structure to do so. Whenever independent statutory elements are listed in a single sentence, common format is to place an "or" in front of the last element. Also, in order to read the bill as to require both a CHL and a requirement that they "lawfully possess" a firearm, it would be common structure to include "and" between those phrases, and/or leave out the comma separating the phrases.

Finally, the inclusion of the word "otherwise" in front of "lawfully possesses a firearm, . . ." indicates that it is contra to possessing a CHL, that is someone other than a CHL.

Plus, the legislative history is going to show the intent is to apply to all lawful possession.

Chas.

gmckinl wrote:If this is the proverbial camel nose in the tent, so be it...

It's not. If it passes, this will be the end of the issue. Our friends in Austin would kill us if we brought it up again!

It is highly unlikely a company will set up a "special" lot just for people with guns in cars. About the only place I can see this actually being used is in the petrochemical industry. Plants commonly have a general parking area for most people including employees, and an inner fenced area protecting the plant. Some people, typically supervisory personnel, can park inside the inner fence. It is this inner fenced area close to the working units that companies would most likely make off-limits.

Chas.

gmckinl wrote:Good news. Much better than the last session attempt wound up being. I am a bit dismayed to see the "out" in the section beginning with: "access to the parking area is restricted or limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station...". Charles, is this one of the mandatory deals to keep it from being DOA?

As KD5NRH noted, there is no escape clause for employers. They either have to provide a parking place where it's okay to leave a gun in a locked car, or they have to provide a secure place to lock up the gun itself.

The language in §42.061(c) allows companies like refineries to keep guns out of the plant area (i.e. the "inner fenced area") so long as they provide other parking for employees.

Chas.

A+ rated Senator Hegar has filed SB730 which would protect employees from employer policies forbidding the storing of firearms in an employee's locked motor vehicle on the employer's parking lot.

This is a very good bill and it does not have any notice requirement that was an issue last session.

Everyone should send an email thanking Senator Hegar for his efforts on behalf of all CHLs

Chas.