MTSA requires a Facility Security Plan (FSP), which are approved by the USCG. Most of these state that weapons are prohibitted from the site. So it is company policy that is required and enforced by Federal Law. A FSP is not law, but it is required of facilities within MTSA sites. What is really nuts is that in order to enter an MTSA site, you must have a TWIC (or be excorted by someone with one) which involes an FBI background check.ScottDLS wrote:In 72 pages of the act I can't find any reference to firearms or prohibition thereof...nor does it seem to apply to "chemical plants" unless they are secure port facilities, which wouldn't be relevant for most plants with no water access. I've heard about the Coast Guard and Customs prohibiting firearms in vehicles entering certain secure ports, even though they (ports) are generally owned by the states/municipalities, but I can't find the legal justification in the Act.Carry-a-Kimber wrote:Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002ScottDLS wrote:
What is the law, other than 30.06 that prohibits carrying under CHL at a chemical plant?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Boycotting 30.06 Businesses vs. Employee Policy”
- Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:04 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Boycotting 30.06 Businesses vs. Employee Policy
- Replies: 51
- Views: 4705
Re: Boycotting 30.06 Businesses vs. Employee Policy
- Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:56 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Boycotting 30.06 Businesses vs. Employee Policy
- Replies: 51
- Views: 4705
Re: Boycotting 30.06 Businesses vs. Employee Policy
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002ScottDLS wrote:
What is the law, other than 30.06 that prohibits carrying under CHL at a chemical plant?