TexasCHLforum.com

e-bil wrote:I know the bill was passed in 2011 in regard to plants still being able to ban employees inside the grounds. Does this ban include visitors parking in either the employee lot or in designated visitor parking on the premises?

e-bil wrote:My question is around a visitor who is a CHL to the plant who is a contractor, customer, or otherwise not a direct employee parking at the plant in a visitor space. This is not someone who is an employee of the plant.

Wodathunkit wrote:Visitor parking falls into the same criteria, it is on the company property. Typically the plants also fall into the federal trade commission (FTC) so it reaches above the standard 30.06. I violate this law everyday. . It's a real shame too. I can tell you which laws I'm violating, the people who would cause harm can't, and don't read the signs.

(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.

EyeToEye wrote:I don't want to hijack this thread but I have another question regarding employer parking lots. I went through six pages of search items but did not find the answer so I figured I would ask.

We had an incident where the employer brought dogs in to sniff vehicles in the parking lot for drugs and firearms. The dog hit on a vehicle resulting in a vehicle search. The search revealed a handgun in the vehicle. The employee that was the owner of the vehicle was asked to leave and was told that it was illegal for him to have a firearm in the vehicle since company policy prohibits it. The employee mentioned the 2011 parking lot law and was told that it only applies to CHL holders.

I have read the language of the bill and need a little clarification. The bill states:

"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."

Does the bold underlined text above reference only CHL holders or is it referring to anyone lawfully possessing a firearm even non CHL holders?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The question as to whether SB321 (employer parking lots) applies only to CHL’s or to everyone who lawfully possesses a handgun is being discussed not only here on TexasCHLforum, but on at least one other gun board as well. Hopefully I can settle this issue once and for all by providing proof that SB321 does cover everyone, not just CHL’s.

As I have stated several times, the language of SB321 is absolutely clear and unequivocal. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say the bill is ambiguous on the issue of who is protected by this Bill. To answer the question, we look to the legislative history of SB321. The first two questions to ask when reviewing and evaluating the legislative history are 1) “was there an amendment addressing the issue in question[?]"; and 2) "was the issue in question discussed during floor debate?” The answer to both of these threshold questions is yes.

Rep. Harold Dutton (D - Houston) offered Amendment 6 that would have amended SB321 so that it would apply only to CHL’s. The Amendment attempted to do so by “striking lines 14 - 16, and substituting ‘from transporting or storing the firearm that the person is licensed to carry and ammunition for that firearm in a locked,’.” Lines 14 - 16 that Rep. Dutton wanted to delete read "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," Amendment 6 failed when Rep. Kleinschmidt’s motion to table it prevailed. The failed attempt to amend SB321 to narrow it to cover only CHL's is conclusive proof that the Bill is not limited to CHL's and any/every court in the state would so hold.

The hearing in which all of this occurred took place on May 3rd, during the afternoon session. Rep. Dutton first brought up the issue of SB321 applying only to CHL’s at 4:25:03 on the video. He makes it clear that, to his dismay, SB321 applied to everyone who lawfully possesses a firearm, not merely CHL’s. An hour and a half later, Rep. Dutton offered Amendment 6 and discussions on his amendment appear at 6:03:10 until 6:16:35 when his Amendment was tabled.

Here are links to the documents and video proving that SB321 applies to everyone who lawfully possesses firearms, not merely CHL’s.

House Committee Report on SB321 that was up for floor debate on May 3rd;

Rep. Dutton Amendment 6 that would have narrowed SB321 to apply only to CHL’s (Pg. 2730 in the Journal; Pg. 48 in the link)

Here is a link to the House Chamber Video. Select the May 3rd afternoon session (1:00pm - 10:38pm) and you will find the discussions I cited at the times set out: 4:25:03 to 4:25:30; and 6:03:10 to 6:16:55.

The bottom line is this; SB321 is not limited to CHL’s. Even if the language of SB321 was ambiguous, which it is not, the legislative history of this Bill is abundantly clear on this issue.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

EyeToEye wrote:I don't want to hijack this thread but I have another question regarding employer parking lots. I went through six pages of search items but did not find the answer so I figured I would ask.

We had an incident where the employer brought dogs in to sniff vehicles in the parking lot for drugs and firearms. The dog hit on a vehicle resulting in a vehicle search. The search revealed a handgun in the vehicle. The employee that was the owner of the vehicle was asked to leave and was told that it was illegal for him to have a firearm in the vehicle since company policy prohibits it. The employee mentioned the 2011 parking lot law and was told that it only applies to CHL holders.

I have read the language of the bill and need a little clarification. The bill states:

"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."

Does the bold underlined text above reference only CHL holders or is it referring to anyone lawfully possessing a firearm even non CHL holders?

The protection is available to anyone who lawfully possesses firearms. The Code is clear, although some intellectually dishonest people deny it. Below is a post I made discussing this very issue.

Chas.

Rhino1 wrote:I am in industrial sales and all my customers are refineries or chemical plants. I rarely drive into the plant but have been known to have a gun in my vehicle since I am only in the visitor parking lot. If the plant even has a 30.06 sign (not all do), it is on the fence to the refinery. The parking lot is not posted in the case of any of my customers. I think/hope I am legal. I would never drive in if I had a gun in the vehicle as I do want to abide by the law.

One of my customers is ExxonMobil in Baytown. Their signs for entry to their property are interesting. They say that firearms are prohibited "except where allowed by law". I have always taken this as an acknowledgement of the parking lot bill. That said, I wouldn't have a problem having a gun in the truck at two of the locations. In neither case am I passing a guard house. However, there is one that allows "partial" entry (access to an admin building inside the fence but separated by another access point to the process units) has a random vehicle search procedure upon exit. I never carry at that location because while I might be legal, I would never be allowed entry to XOM after that.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

EyeToEye wrote:I don't want to hijack this thread but I have another question regarding employer parking lots. I went through six pages of search items but did not find the answer so I figured I would ask.

We had an incident where the employer brought dogs in to sniff vehicles in the parking lot for drugs and firearms. The dog hit on a vehicle resulting in a vehicle search. The search revealed a handgun in the vehicle. The employee that was the owner of the vehicle was asked to leave and was told that it was illegal for him to have a firearm in the vehicle since company policy prohibits it. The employee mentioned the 2011 parking lot law and was told that it only applies to CHL holders.

I have read the language of the bill and need a little clarification. The bill states:

"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."

Does the bold underlined text above reference only CHL holders or is it referring to anyone lawfully possessing a firearm even non CHL holders?

The protection is available to anyone who lawfully possesses firearms. The Code is clear, although some intellectually dishonest people deny it.