TexasCHLforum.com

FNguy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jmra wrote: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.

Is that in Texas law somewhere? For example, the security guards at the chemical plants usually are employed by a guard service that places them at the plant. Does that mean they're also employees of the plant and not contract personnel?

Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 wrote:Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

i8godzilla wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

i8godzilla wrote:

jmra wrote: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.

Forgive me if this sounds argumentative, that is not my intention.

What happens during a traffic stop? Do you not need to provide your CHL when asked for you DL? If you are carrying under the protection of the MPA, what authority does a LEO have to temporarily confiscate your weapon? If asked if you have a weapon, can you simply state, "that is not related to this traffic stop"? We have heard stories about LEOs dis-arming CHLs during traffic stops. I know the law allows the LEO to disarm for 'safety' reasons, however, this applies to carrying with a CHL. What about MPA?

Thanks!

Iunnrais wrote: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?

jmra wrote: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 wrote:

jmra wrote: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....................