Anonymously asking company to update weapons policy?

[seamusTX]

If he says No, they can tell him to leave and never come back, which is trespass notice under 30.05 ...

This probably is true, in and of itself. A homeowner, farmer, or rancher certainly could tell anyone to stay off his private property.

However, the landlord of commercial property has some kind of contractual requirement to allow employees and customers of the tenant companies to enter unless the tenant company says No.

A close friend of mine has exactly this kind of situation. They have a campus that is not open to the public. Employees need a badge to enter the parking lot in their car. Visitors are required to pass a guard station and be signed in.

A tenant employer can revoke the right of an employee (or should I say former employee?) to enter, but the landlord actually enforces the revocation.

The landlord can't just say they don't allow hippies and long-haired freaky people on the property.

- Jim

[tbrown]

What if they have a sign?

[seamusTX]

I don't know.

How's that for a straight answer?

Personally, I think the bureaucrats who worry about this stuff and post signs think they have done their job, and most dismiss the issue after that.

I worked at a place in the 1980s where the HR manager thought he should enforce the anti-sexual-harassment policy like "Robocop." He was taking things out of employees' cubicles at night (mostly calendars). Somebody got him throttled down, because what he was doing was simply creepy.

- Jim

[tbrown]

That was actually a hats off to your song lyric reference.

In a commercial landlord-tenant relationship, the rights and responsibilities should be spelled out in the contract. It's possible some contracts prohibit the landlord from denying access to anyone approved by the tenant. Others may retain that right for the landlord, or specify the circumstances when the landlord may restrict access for someone approved by the tenant.

To step outside SB321 which is a hot button for some people, a landlord could theoretically prohibit parking if a vehicle does not have current registration and inspection stickers. I know a residential landlord who does that. Even if someone has an access card, that landlord reserves the right to tow vehicles with expired inspection stickers. So I think it's theoretically possible some landlords have the right under some leases to prohibit vehicles or people for other reasons too. Completely hypothetically, refusal to allow a search could be one such reason.

[seamusTX]

Thanks.

A fairly obvious example of a landlord denying access is someone trying to enter the property who is engaging in illegal activity.

Malls have problems with people trying to do drug deals and other nefarious activity in the parking lot, or being drunk or disorderly. Usually the landlord is in charge of security and takes care of that kind of thing without the tenants worrying about it.

Probably the legal situation is more complicated with secure premises where the tenants can allow or prohibit access on a per-person basis.

I'm really out of my depth on the legal aspects of that issue. I doubt there is a single pat answer.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

I remember that, early on, 30.06 was intended to include only the "premises," which did not include parking lots

What's your source for that? I'm asking because the 30.06 law clearly says "property" (not "premises") same as the 30.05 law before it.

That's why I used the words, "I remember that...".......as in, "I had it in my mind that....."

I've just gone back and read TPC 30.05 and 30.06, and clearly you are correct. Equally clearly, I am disappointed. It kinda makes one want to consider calculated decisions to break the law. I know that you can't make an argument for breaking the law, except that I'd rather be tried by 12 than buried by six. That raises a philosophical question.....

A few days ago, somebody I know made such a calculated decision when he was scouting potential photography sites in the Grapevine area and decided to take a look at one of the picnic sites along the north shore of Grapevine Lake, which is COE land. This person was carrying a firearm under the authority of his CHL, and he drove into the picnic area (after paying the entry fee). I'm told that the entrances are clearly posted with "No Firearms" signs. Anyway, this guy drove around a few of the picnic sites, actually got out of his car at one of them to take a look around, didn't see anything that interested him, got back into his car and left. I happen to know that this guy has no criminal record, not even for the most minor misdemeanors. He's never been arrested. He's sober. He's active in his church and a stable contributing member of his community. His last moving violation in a vehicle was 13 years ago.

From what I've described, this person clearly did break the law, but he's not really a criminal.....not like you think of criminals. I know him pretty well. Did he do wrong?

[seamusTX]

Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

[Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963]

That said, I'm hitting the off-topic alarm button. Private employer/property owner rights are a distinct subject from federal government infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

Also, when people get over the initial visceral reaction, they have to ask themselves whether they would want anyone such as a plumber or painter to try to enforce the rights of that hired person to do X or Y on your property.

This is a delicate question on both sides of the transaction.

- Jim