TexasCHLforum.com

gwashorn wrote:So, thread back on original question, has anyone heard back from Alice Tripp and the TSRA or others with an answer as to where the line is drawn?

The law looks pretty clear. It governs the employer-employee relationship. It doesn't affect the landlord-tenant or vendor-customer relationships.

For more evidence, look at the fact it's part of the "Labor Code" and also the Caption Text says it's

Relating to an employee's transportation and storage of certain firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or controlled by the employee's employer.

so legislative intent seems to be only to affect "the employee's employer."

If Smallmart can post their parking lots to restrict visitors and customers (who aren't Smallmart employees) then Cushman Wakefield can post their parking lots to restrict visitors and customers (who aren't Cushman Wakefield employees) too.

chlag01 wrote:This is a multi-building complex owned/managed by Cushman Wakefield, and my friend's employer leases one of the buildings. Tenants of the multi-building complex include Polycom, Freescale Semiconductor, Paypal, and possibly Ebay. The Baylor MBA program also leases a building.

If the signs were posted by Cushman Wakefield, then their employees would be protected by SB321. However, tenants and employees of tenants are not protected.

If the signs were posted by one of the tenants, then their employees would be protected by SB321. If the tenant has control of the parking area, the signs would apply to visitors and other people who aren't employees. If the tenant does not have control of the parking area, they can't give effective notice.

IMHO but IANAL