UPDT:Freescale, Polycom, Paypal parking lot now posted 30.06

[srothstein]

I think this is a non-issue that will make the property owners feel better but does nothing. As I stated before, and someone has posted from Charles also, that 30.06 does not apply to the gun in your car. It is not illegal so you do not need the exception tot he law provided by CHL. So, when in a car you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL and 30.06 does not apply.

I also added that 30.05 does not apply to the person with a CHL and pistol. And since this was in place before MPA, it does not reference carrying under your CHL authority, it just says that 30.05 isn't valid against a CHL.

Now I would have to admit that 30.05 signs would cover anyone with a rifle or shotgun in the car, even if they also have a CHL. That part does seem to be covered.

In answer to one of the other questions, I think that the property owner can post the lot or building, even if the tenant does not. The laws on trespass all are based on notice from the owner or someone acting with his apparent authority. I think the argument in court would be that a tenant would have the authority of the owner in the section leased. This is why a person renting the convention center cannot post 30.06. If the owner does not have the authority, the person cannot be acting within the apparent authority of the owner to post.

And in answer to Heartland Patriot's last question, I don't know of a legal definition for on or about your person. The generally accepted working definition is if it can be grabbed without your having to move other than reach. So, if the pistol were in an open cardboard box that is behind the seat on the far side of the truck, I don't think ti would be on or about your person. Inside a locked container, such as the center console or glove box, would also make it ungrabbable and not on your person. But on the seat next to you under a loose cloth would still be on or about your person. Does that help a little?

[Heartland Patriot]

I think this is a non-issue that will make the property owners feel better but does nothing. As I stated before, and someone has posted from Charles also, that 30.06 does not apply to the gun in your car. It is not illegal so you do not need the exception tot he law provided by CHL. So, when in a car you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL and 30.06 does not apply.

I also added that 30.05 does not apply to the person with a CHL and pistol. And since this was in place before MPA, it does not reference carrying under your CHL authority, it just says that 30.05 isn't valid against a CHL.

Now I would have to admit that 30.05 signs would cover anyone with a rifle or shotgun in the car, even if they also have a CHL. That part does seem to be covered.

In answer to one of the other questions, I think that the property owner can post the lot or building, even if the tenant does not. The laws on trespass all are based on notice from the owner or someone acting with his apparent authority. I think the argument in court would be that a tenant would have the authority of the owner in the section leased. This is why a person renting the convention center cannot post 30.06. If the owner does not have the authority, the person cannot be acting within the apparent authority of the owner to post.

And in answer to Heartland Patriot's last question, I don't know of a legal definition for on or about your person. The generally accepted working definition is if it can be grabbed without your having to move other than reach. So, if the pistol were in an open cardboard box that is behind the seat on the far side of the truck, I don't think ti would be on or about your person. Inside a locked container, such as the center console or glove box, would also make it ungrabbable and not on your person. But on the seat next to you under a loose cloth would still be on or about your person. Does that help a little?

Actually, it does help. I've been thinking about getting one of those gun safes for vehicles. Goes under the seat. It would certainly be locked up, and thus not "on or about my person". Then I would certainly not be carrying, and the MPA should apply...just a thought.

[apostate]

As I stated before, and someone has posted from Charles also, that 30.06 does not apply to the gun in your car. It is not illegal so you do not need the exception tot he law provided by CHL. So, when in a car you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL and 30.06 does not apply.

I tend to agree, as long as there's only a 30.06 sign and not 30.05 notice as well. To see why I believe that, let's look at the CHL language in sections 30.05 and 46.15 of the Texas Penal Code.

30.05:
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and (2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

46.15:
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who: [...]
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

Although the language is not identical, I believe it is close enough that they mean essentially the same thing. Therefore, if someone is carrying under the authority of their CHL for the 46.15(b)(6) non-applicability then they're also doing so for the 30.05(f) defense to prosecution. Contrariwise, if someone is not carrying under the authority of their CHL for the 30.05(f) defense to prosecution then they're not for the 46.15(b)(6) non-applicability either.

(And, in the latter case, do I ever carry a handgun on or about my person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code? If not, then I can ignore 46.035 including the requirement to conceal. )

[gwashorn]

Well, I have been waiting for this to happen. My company leases office space in a building that has its own security personnel. The building provides parking for the tenants. The building is properly posted 30.06 and has been for a very long time. Today one of the parking lots is posted 30.06. Therefore the question is as an employee of the company that leases office space and therefore has parking lot privileges because of the building lease, am I protected under SB321 to go past the 30.06 sign in that lot? I have to have a sticker on my car window to allow me to park in these lots. Therefore I assume my permission to park in the lot is tied to my working relationship with my employer who leases in this building.

Therefore question is does SB321 protect me? Am I protected because of MPA and is the reason I can go past a 30.06 as noted in previous discussions of this thread? I am not removing my CCW weapon from the car. It is locked inside my car. I have no other readily available parking means to work at my office. I am allowed to park in this lot with direct permission of the building owner security management system. Our lease for our offices includes them providing parking which they manage and we obey their rules. Therefore, as an employer leasing the office and parking, I ask the question again, am I protected from the building owner 30.06 and no guns buster signs to park in this lot so I can go to my work office? Thank you.

[Oldgringo]

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.

Who is "Smallmart"? Is that a joke about the big-box retailer or is it actually some other company? Because if its the big-box people, I've never seen any of their parking lots posted...

Me either. In fact, we fueled up at the Wal-Mart in Childress last week on our way home and there must have been a dozen big trucks and/or RV's in that lot that had overnighted there.

[gwashorn]

He is asking whether or not 30.06 signs posted by the owner of a multi-tenant commercial office building apply to employees of companies leasing space at those buildings, I think.

Correct. In this case it is a multi-building office complex, one tenant per building.

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?

[tbrown]

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."

[gwashorn]

Yes I understand the relationship. what is not clear is how the contract between the tenant, (my company) and the property owner who has posted the sign. Since they are providing the parking as a part of my company's office lease then it is my companies' parking lot. Therefore I "SHOULD" be covered by SB321. But still want confirmation.

[apostate]

You should be covered if the company that owns the property and posts the signs is your employer. Otherwise, not so much.

[gwashorn]

Nope clearly stated above and the original start of this thread. Multi tenant building owned by a third party. Third party building owner is NOT my employer. My employer leasing office space and parking access. We can not park our cars in this buildings parking lots without one of their stickers on our windshield. The parking lot is managed and controlled by the building owner. Tenants lease and have assigned parking areas for upper persons and the rest of us grunts park in the rest of the lot. End deal, we lease parking privileges as a part of our building office lease. Therefore, been asked over and over, SB321 is between the employer and employee. However, the parking lot is not a direct owned lot by the employer. It is leased by the employer along with the office space. The building/parking lot owner posts the gun buster signs and the 30.06 signs. SB321 allows a CHL to pass the 30.06 and MPA does not care. Either way having it in the car is not illegal. I can not remove it from my car however as stated by Charles once I am past the 30.06 and that is fine. So, question once again, due to the WHO posted the sign problem, am I violating the 30.06 sign? I say not and Charles and stated before in the car is MPA. So that is fine regardless of SB321. Am I protected on job status because of SB321 that is the question.

Hence the real question what is the status if any by the TSRA to be gathering a response to these issues? I did not carry today. I plan on doing so next week. I do not wish to be a legal test case on the 30.06 part but I think I would be fine there. As for the keeping my job part, I really don't care. I have more options to work and can survive quite well.

[Keith B]

Nope clearly stated above and the original start of this thread. Multi tenant building owned by a third party. Third party building owner is NOT my employer. My employer leasing office space and parking access. We can not park our cars in this buildings parking lots without one of their stickers on our windshield. The parking lot is managed and controlled by the building owner. Tenants lease and have assigned parking areas for upper persons and the rest of us grunts park in the rest of the lot. End deal, we lease parking privileges as a part of our building office lease. Therefore, been asked over and over, SB321 is between the employer and employee. However, the parking lot is not a direct owned lot by the employer. It is leased by the employer along with the office space. The building/parking lot owner posts the gun buster signs and the 30.06 signs. SB321 allows a CHL to pass the 30.06 and MPA does not care. Either way having it in the car is not illegal. I can not remove it from my car however as stated by Charles once I am past the 30.06 and that is fine. So, question once again, due to the WHO posted the sign problem, am I violating the 30.06 sign? I say not and Charles and stated before in the car is MPA. So that is fine regardless of SB321. Am I protected on job status because of SB321 that is the question.

Hence the real question what is the status if any by the TSRA to be gathering a response to these issues? I did not carry today. I plan on doing so next week. I do not wish to be a legal test case on the 30.06 part but I think I would be fine there. As for the keeping my job part, I really don't care. I have more options to work and can survive quite well.

Here's my thoughts on this. If your employer does not control the parking lot in this case, then they in turn cannot make it a term of employment to not have something in your vehicle in a lot they don't control. Along those lines, my employer leases many buildings and the attached lots. Since we are not a multi-tenant building, we have full responsibility for the building and lots. IMO, since we are the sole tenant, then it becomes my employers parking lot and SB321 applies.

Now, in your case, I would assess that the places where SB321 would apply to you are the designated spots in the lot that your company controls, so if you parked in one of those, then SB321 would apply. In the multi-use spots, it wouldn't and you would fall under MPA.

No case law, so may be speculation, but think that this would be a great argument if you had to take it to court.

[jimlongley]

This is a non-issue for me, but I have been following the thread with some interest.

One thing I have noted: This thread is concentrated on who gets to post 30.06, 30.05, etc; who gets to go past the posting; and whether the landlord's posting has any effect on the tenant and tenant's employees.

The greater portion of the arguments noted seem to be just the reverse of those offered in "gun show" postings where the government owns the building.

If the government owns the building then the tenant cannot post, is the usual argument, and yet here we have: The owner of the building cannot effectively post against the tenant's employees and visitors.

Quite a conundrum.

[gwashorn]

This is a non-issue for me, but I have been following the thread with some interest.

One thing I have noted: This thread is concentrated on who gets to post 30.06, 30.05, etc; who gets to go past the posting; and whether the landlord's posting has any effect on the tenant and tenant's employees.

The greater portion of the arguments noted seem to be just the reverse of those offered in "gun show" postings where the government owns the building.

If the government owns the building then the tenant cannot post, is the usual argument, and yet here we have: The owner of the building cannot effectively post against the tenant's employees and visitors.

Quite a conundrum.

I agree we have two concurrent and interconnected issues. Can I drive past the sign and is my employment protected. In my case, MPA lets me drive past the 30.06 sign if I understood one of the posts by Charles. There are only gun buster signs. I just don't take it out of the car which I was not wanting to anyway. So I can park and no biggy (As far as I know). So I am left with "am in protected by SB321". May not matter if as noted above my company does not manage the parking lot, I am therefore not in my company's lot. So I do not need SB321 to protect me. It would be the same as parking at the Lowes parking lot next door.

I did some research on the legislature transcripts and found this very discussion happened on May 4th. I have copied it to a file for review. I did not seem to see a resolution to it and I was not sure how it affects the interpretations of SB321 based on the transcripts. Perhaps Charles can chime in on that.

And again I ask, has the TSRA made any progress on this issue? Alice Tripp asked to be informed of these problems. I may open a separate thread just on the status and updates of TSRA/NRA review of these issues.

[koolaid]

If multi-tenant office building lots are not covered by this then it is essentially useless to anyone who works in an urban area.

The fact that it is this difficult to come to a consensus on it is not heartening.

I work in a multi-tenant building. Lots are not posted but our employee manual has not been updated and probably never will be.

Such is life.

[boba]

And again I ask, has the TSRA made any progress on this issue? Alice Tripp asked to be informed of these problems. I may open a separate thread just on the status and updates of TSRA/NRA review of these issues.

The legislative session is over. What progress do you expect TSRA to make when the companies are following the law as long as they don't prohibit their own employees from having a gun in their car. This was discussed when the law was still a bill. It doesn't cover customers, suppliers, tenants, visitors, or anyone who isn't an employee of the company. One example is the law protects private college faculty and staff, but not students. They knew all this when they passed the law.