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

[chlag01]

As a friend of mine drove in to work this morning, he noticed that the office complex located at 7700 W Parmer Ln, Austin now has gunbusters and 30.06 signs posted at the parking lot entrances. These are definitely new, and he's sure they are in response to passage of SB 321.

30.06 sign

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.

I know SB 321 prohibits employers from prohibiting storing firearms in a locked car in parking lot. However, since these may be posted by the property manager of the entire complex, not any individual tenant employer, have they found a loophole that would prevent my friend from locking his gun in his employer's parking lot?

Is there any recourse to have the signs removed? This seem to be flying in the face of the spirit of SB 321.

UPDATE:
I noticed this morning that the gunbusters and 30.06 language has been removed from the parking lot signs.

[Beiruty]

Good question. After SB321 can only-employees ignore a valid 30.06 posted at the entrance of their parking lots?
Non-employees has to stay off-limits.

[koolaid]

Good question. After SB321 can only-employees ignore a valid 30.06 posted at the entrance of their parking lots?
Non-employees has to stay off-limits.

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.

[chlag01]

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.

[tbrown]

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

[chlag01]

I've emailed my state senator along with the SB 321 sponsors asking for clarification or help in removing the signs. I'll let you know if anything comes of it. So far I have a non-auto response from Sen Birdwell's staff that they will forward my question to him.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've emailed my state senator along with the SB 321 sponsors asking for clarification or help in removing the signs. I'll let you know if anything comes of it. So far I have a non-auto response from Sen Birdwell's staff that they will forward my question to him.

Looking forward to their answer. This crap has got to stop. I don't think that the legislature is going to take a violation of their intent laying down. Like I posted in your other thread, I believe we'll see more and more of this over the next 12-24 months, and then it will come boiling to a head at the next meeting of the legislature. If I had to bet, I'd bet that the legislature would add wording to the law to enforce their intent.

That intent is not debatable. The bill's analysis (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... navpanes=0) says right in the first sentence:

S.B. 321 seeks to prohibit employers from adopting policies that prohibit their employees from storing legal firearms and/or ammunition in their locked vehicles in the employers' parking lot

You can't get any more plain spoken than that.
The first paragraph of the enrolled bill (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... navpanes=0) says:

A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

You can't get any more plain spoken than that, either. What is happening to the OP clearly does not fall within the exceptions outlined in SB321, and it is a clear violation of the intent of the legislature. May God have mercy on Cushman Wakefield, but the Texas Legislature certainly isn't going to.

[Keith B]

There is no case law on this, but my personal opinion is that if you lease space, you would normally get parking lot privileges. So, at that point I think you should be protected by SB321 and 30.06 would not apply on your employer's lot. Otherwise, since many companies lease buildings and space, all the company would have to do is have the landlord post a 30.06 and prohibit you from parking there with a gun. Not sure that would be valid.

And, I still believe that MPA is out the window if you have a CHL. Don't believe you can switch hats at will, but could be wrong.

[3dfxMM]

There are several threads running with this topic or a slight variation of it. I have stated in a couple of them that I don't believe that the 30.06 signs carry any weight if your weapon remains concealed in your car. I am not sure about the gunbuster signs.

[longhorn86]

One thing is for sure, that is one of the most expensive 30.06 signs I've ever seen! Especially if they are forced to remove it....

[chlag01]

One thing is for sure, that is one of the most expensive 30.06 signs I've ever seen! Especially if they are forced to remove it....

The poor picture quality gives the impression the sign is granite, but I believe it is just aluminum with screened lettering.

[tbrown]

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.

[koolaid]

It is honestly kind of annoying that the law doesn't address this directly considering the vast amount of office space that is in leased and shared commercial property.

Look forward to some sort of clarification.

[blue]

What really hurts is ---

If a CHLer does the slightest thing wrong its Thors hammer instantly.

BUT, if a Anti intentionally does wrong, against Texas State law, there is NO PENALTY at all.

-State Fair in Dallas
-schools, colleges
-San Antonio (knife law)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, there is a really long way to go.



( If stepping into a school building changes a CHLer into a crazed killer and stepping
back out changes them back to good citizen, and this does not happen in other buildings,
then the real solution is for everyones safety,= Destroy all them 'EVIL' school buildings!)

[Heartland Patriot]

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...