Parking lot, parking lot what ya gonna do

[AlaskanInTexas]

While the company's policy may be misguided, I fail to see how it is illegal or unenforceable.

[4copas]

There was a big stink over information of chl's being taken at the State Fair in order to get in. If I remember right, the city of Dallas and the State had some kind of meeting to figure it all out. Don't have time to research now, but if you do a search for State Fair on the forum, I think the answer about collecting information is there somewhere.

[steve817]

Canvasbck, I would also note that it is illegal for anyone to collect a list of holders of a CHL if I understand the law correctly. So to me, IMHO, IANAL, etc, etc, those forms best not try to determine how a person is legal to have the firearm as the SB321 allows. If they are asking whether I am a CHL holder, I for one would file a law suit to make a point of them and send a warning to the rest. Don't mess with TEXAS... that means us.

Umm, not quite true. by law (GC 411.192), DPS does not release a mailing list (or other list) of CHL holders -- but as far as I know, there is nothing in the law preventing a private individual or company from collecting that information when "voluntarily" offered. (If you know differently, please point out the statute in question.)

Yes, I have read this section too and I think this is a grey area, hence my comment defining "IF I UNDERSTAND THE LAW CORRECTLY". I am not "voluntarily" giving my status to be maintained by someone else. It has been a while since reading some threads about whether or not "other" groups can collect and maintain this information. The arguement made in the past was since it can not be given out by the state except to justice departments and I have to be notified that it was requested, then I assume if my employer collects it then they could give it out and not tell me. This may well get tested then as to who can collect and control a list of CHL holders. Imagine if you will, a group wants to know who has a license and they can not ask for it from the state, but they can collect it under the pretense of my employment depends on it if I tell my employer if I am licensed. Now who protects my rights? This is one of the points Canvasback was raising in treading close to the line of preventing our legal rights. If I am not mistaken under SB321 (correct me if wrong) the employer can not provide parking that separates or denotes us as CHL or MPA holders in a lot that then identifies us. I agree the GC411.192 covers how they (the State) do it. I am not pointing out they can not do it except as interpreted under GC411.192. Employers can do what they want, it is up to us to hold them to the law, and that is my point.

The Texas law sealed the records of CHL holders from public view. If memory serves me correctly, it was because some companies (Canon USA for one) were requiring employees to report their CHL status and then matching them with state records. If an employee failed to report that they were a CHL holder they were then disciplined up to and including termination.

[canvasbck]

GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS.

The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. The department shall, on written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, disclose to any other individual whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552, except that the applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records on request and the payment of a reasonable fee. The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the person or agency making the request. This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department.

Above is the actual law being discussed. The bolded part is the part that makes what these companies are doing seem somewhat suspect. (BTW, 411.193 is the section that allows DPS to release statistical data) The State Fair has taken all mention of recording the names of CHL holders from their FAQ's and other parts of their website.

Thank you all for the debate, it led me to do some more research and forward some information to some of those companies that are planning on using a declaration form in an effort to persuade them to not force the issue of declaration forms. I'm glad I was able to persuade my company to stay as far from these forms as possible.

I would love for Charles to chime in and get his take on the legality of employers requiring these firearms declaration forms.

[sjfcontrol]

GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS.

The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. The department shall, on written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, disclose to any other individual whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552, except that the applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records on request and the payment of a reasonable fee. The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the person or agency making the request. This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department.

Above is the actual law being discussed. The bolded part is the part that makes what these companies are doing seem somewhat suspect. (BTW, 411.193 is the section that allows DPS to release statistical data) The State Fair has taken all mention of recording the names of CHL holders from their FAQ's and other parts of their website.

Thank you all for the debate, it led me to do some more research and forward some information to some of those companies that are planning on using a declaration form in an effort to persuade them to not force the issue of declaration forms. I'm glad I was able to persuade my company to stay as far from these forms as possible.

I would love for Charles to chime in and get his take on the legality of employers requiring these firearms declaration forms.

The "open records law" GC section 552, deals with "open government". It is concerned about what information GOVERNMENT releases to the public. It has nothing to do with what information can be collected or disseminated by individuals or companies.

If something is not specifically illegal by code, it's legal.

[canvasbck]

GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS.

The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. The department shall, on written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, disclose to any other individual whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552, except that the applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records on request and the payment of a reasonable fee. The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the person or agency making the request. This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department.

Above is the actual law being discussed. The bolded part is the part that makes what these companies are doing seem somewhat suspect. (BTW, 411.193 is the section that allows DPS to release statistical data) The State Fair has taken all mention of recording the names of CHL holders from their FAQ's and other parts of their website.

Thank you all for the debate, it led me to do some more research and forward some information to some of those companies that are planning on using a declaration form in an effort to persuade them to not force the issue of declaration forms. I'm glad I was able to persuade my company to stay as far from these forms as possible.

I would love for Charles to chime in and get his take on the legality of employers requiring these firearms declaration forms.

The "open records law" GC section 552, deals with "open government". It is concerned about what information GOVERNMENT releases to the public. It has nothing to do with what information can be collected or disseminated by individuals or companies.

If something is not specifically illegal by code, it's legal.

If you want to highlight just a few words from a sentence, what about this statement?

all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential

I'm not saying that what these other companies are doing is expressly illegal. What I am contending is that it could possibly be challenged based on this law. The law can at least be used in an effort to dissuade companies from requiring paperwork that serves no purpose other than to make it difficult for employees (who are allowed under SB321) to store a firearm in a locked vehicle based on the risk of litigation.

[sjfcontrol]

If you want to highlight just a few words from a sentence, what about this statement?

all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential

I'm not saying that what these other companies are doing is expressly illegal. What I am contending is that it could possibly be challenged based on this law. The law can at least be used in an effort to dissuade companies from requiring paperwork that serves no purpose other than to make it difficult for employees (who are allowed under SB321) to store a firearm in a locked vehicle based on the risk of litigation.

Again, they are confidential to the Government.

If you're not saying what the companies are doing is illegal, then we agree. I have no problem whatsoever with your using anything you want to convince companies not to make their own lists. More power to you in that respect!

[canvasbck]

Again, they are confidential to the Government.

If you're not saying what the companies are doing is illegal, then we agree. I have no problem whatsoever with your using anything you want to convince companies not to make their own lists. More power to you in that respect!

That's my main goal is to use whatever influence I have as an industry representative to prevent companies from looking for reason to discipline/fire employees over this new law.

I have also tried common sense with them in explaining that they are in fact creating liability. If a company fires an employee that they KNOW has a firearm, they are then going to use an unarmed security guard to escort them TO their firearm.

I really hope that the next session addresses the few hundred thousand Texans who were left out by SB321 such as contractors and chemical plant/refinery workers. My initial post in this thread was intended to warn those employees of companies using the declaration forms that many of these companies fully intend to use these forms to find non-compliance and terminate employees for not following the new company policy.

[gwashorn]

I am not going to "quote" all the same paragraphs above. I obviously agree with Canvasbck for the reasons he gave and what I was trying to say. This is a grey area to interpret because to me if it is confidential to government, (WE THE PEOPLE) are the government then it is confidential to everyone else. A company bending around the SB321law to make it harder seems to infringe on my right to keep my CHL private. That is all we are saying. And yes, as he noted, I hope Charles may comment on our interpretations.

[tacticool]

The "open records law" GC section 552, deals with "open government". It is concerned about what information GOVERNMENT releases to the public. It has nothing to do with what information can be collected or disseminated by individuals or companies.

If something is not specifically illegal by code, it's legal.

I agree. Medical records are confidential but if you have a condition and want your employer to provide reasonable accommodations, you should expect to reveal that. On the other hand, if you don't want/need any special treatment you can keep quiet, same as you don't have to reveal your CHL status if you won't have a gun in your car.

[sjfcontrol]

I am not going to "quote" all the same paragraphs above. I obviously agree with Canvasbck for the reasons he gave and what I was trying to say. This is a grey area to interpret because to me if it is confidential to government, (WE THE PEOPLE) are the government then it is confidential to everyone else. A company bending around the SB321law to make it harder seems to infringe on my right to keep my CHL private. That is all we are saying. And yes, as he noted, I hope Charles may comment on our interpretations.

Well, you can choose to believe whatever you want. You're entitled to your own beliefs. You aren't entitled to your own facts.

[Dragonfighter]

There was a big stink over information of chl's being taken at the State Fair in order to get in. If I remember right, the city of Dallas and the State had some kind of meeting to figure it all out. Don't have time to research now, but if you do a search for State Fair on the forum, I think the answer about collecting information is there somewhere.

Both the State Fair of Texas (company operating the fair) and the security contractor were reprimanded, the security contractor was fined for a number of violations including this. The City of Dallas pulled a "plausible deniability" on the policy even though they were notified. They "cooperated" with the DPS investigation though I am not sure in what capacity.

The contractor tried to say the information was "voluntarily provided" (you buy the ticket you are volunteering to provide the information) but the clear use of intimidation and refusal of entry was established. DPS is real clear that only an LEO can require identification and only DPS can keep and track information on CHL holders and what The State Fair of Texas and their security was doing is criminal (according to my DPS POC). I would think that a company requiring this information could soon find themselves in a similar and very expensive position.

Added in Edit: The policy now is, to bypass the scanners by informing the gate supervisor you "need to see the officer inside the gate" or that you have a CHL and then they will escort you over to the cop...sometimes on your own recognizance as it were. They will not ask to see the license nor will they look at it should you offer it. More discreet and technically legal, still singles out CHL holders though.

[raptor]

Is it illegal for Texas CHL forum members to say they received their plastic?

Is it illegal for a FFL to ask for a CHL if you want to bypass the instant check?

[Dragonfighter]

Is it illegal for Texas CHL forum members to say they received their plastic?

Is it illegal for a FFL to ask for a CHL if you want to bypass the instant check?

No.

[4copas]

TSRA Legislative Alert, pretty well sums it up I think.

Edit to add link.
https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=113

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE INFORMATION CONTACT
August 26, 2011
Craven (512) 463-0118

Senator Hegar's Senate Bill 321 Takes Effect, Law Abiding Texans Gain the Right to Store Firearms in their Cars While at Work

Understand your rights under the new law
Austin, Texas-State Senator Glenn Hegar (R, of Katy) is pleased to announce that as of September 1, Senate Bill 321 is now Texas law. The bill strengthens and protects the Second Amendment rights of hardworking Texas. As Texans readied for the new law, Senator Hegar's office fielded some questions from employers and employees whose answers bear repeating.

Hegar's new addition to state law prevents most employers from adopting policies that deny Second Amendment protections to their employees who wish to store legally owned firearms in their locked vehicles while at work. The bill responds to a number of instances across the state where employees have been denied the right to protect themselves while traveling to and from work because their employers have adopted overly restrictive policies. Texas joins neighboring Oklahoma and Louisiana and becomes the fourteenth state to enact a law of this type.

"It took three sessions to pass this bill, but it was worth all of the considerable effort it took," said Senator Hegar, "Second Amendment rights are sacred in Texas, and this bill protects against the erosion of those rights. It is important that both employees and employers understand their rights under the new law, so I would encourage anyone with a question not answered here to contact my office immediately.."

One important point to first understand is that the bill applies to all employees legally in possession of a firearm. Some have read the bill to apply only to Concealed Handgun Licensees, an interpretation easily invalidated by a quick read of the bill. The only exception is for a small group of clearly defined hazardous chemical facilities. Those facilities may limit firearm storage in their parking areas to those employees that possess a Concealed Handgun License.

The only employers not covered by the bill, who will retain the ability to adopt policies forbidding the storage of employee firearms in employer provided parking areas are public and private elementary, middle, and high schools, and private landowners leasing oil, gas, or mineral rights on their property.

As the bill approached becoming law, some employers announced an intention to require their employees wishing to exercise their right under the bill to disclose that intent, and in some cases, other information to human resources. That proposal was brought forth and rejected by Senator Hegar as the bill made its way through the legislative session. While employees will need to make their own decision, no state or federal law requires an employee to provide such notice to their employer.

Hegar's bill balances the rights of employer and employee. Under the new law, employees regain their express right to store legally owned firearms and ammunition at their place of work, and with it, the ability to protect themselves as they travel to and from their jobs. Employers will be protected from any lawsuit resulting from the use of a firearm stored on their property, and they can still forbid an employee from carrying a firearm in company owned vehicles. Under his new law, employers will also retain the right to prohibit firearms in their offices.

"Responsible and law-abiding gun owners should never have been forced to choose between personal protection and protecting their jobs," said Hegar, "Thankfully, no hardworking Texan will again face that difficult and unfair choice," he concluded.