TexasCHLforum.com

A+ rated Senator Hegar has filed SB730 which would protect employees from employer policies forbidding the storing of firearms in an employee's locked motor vehicle on the employer's parking lot.

This is a very good bill and it does not have any notice requirement that was an issue last session.

Everyone should send an email thanking Senator Hegar for his efforts on behalf of all CHLs

Chas.

Good news. Much better than the last session attempt wound up being. I am a bit dismayed to see the "out" in the section beginning with: "access to the parking area is restricted or limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station...". Charles, is this one of the mandatory deals to keep it from being DOA?

gmckinl wrote:Good news. Much better than the last session attempt wound up being. I am a bit dismayed to see the "out" in the section beginning with: "access to the parking area is restricted or limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station...". Charles, is this one of the mandatory deals to keep it from being DOA?

Note that it's "and" provide safe storage or alternate parking.

I thought the same until I spotted that little "and."

gmckinl wrote:Good news. Much better than the last session attempt wound up being. I am a bit dismayed to see the "out" in the section beginning with: "access to the parking area is restricted or limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station...". Charles, is this one of the mandatory deals to keep it from being DOA?

As KD5NRH noted, there is no escape clause for employers. They either have to provide a parking place where it's okay to leave a gun in a locked car, or they have to provide a secure place to lock up the gun itself.

The language in §42.061(c) allows companies like refineries to keep guns out of the plant area (i.e. the "inner fenced area") so long as they provide other parking for employees.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The language in §42.061(c) allows companies like refineries to keep guns out of the plant area (i.e. the "inner fenced area") so long as they provide other parking for employees.

Chas.

Thanks. I applaud your hard work in getting it on the table. Section 30.05 "refineries, etc." issue w/ no exception for CHL as the basis for this wording I'm assuming.

Point being that the cars in the "special" lot would be a hot target - general thugs would just see them as less protected, but disgruntled former employees KNOW why people parked in that lot and they or their less-upstanding acquaintances know what they can score by hitting those "targets". Just the fact that people see you or your vehicle in "that" lot is telling in and of itself.

If this is the proverbial camel nose in the tent, so be it...

Again, thanks. I keep my fingers crossed. See ya in Phoenix perhaps.

tag

gmckinl wrote:If this is the proverbial camel nose in the tent, so be it...

It's not. If it passes, this will be the end of the issue. Our friends in Austin would kill us if we brought it up again!

It is highly unlikely a company will set up a "special" lot just for people with guns in cars. About the only place I can see this actually being used is in the petrochemical industry. Plants commonly have a general parking area for most people including employees, and an inner fenced area protecting the plant. Some people, typically supervisory personnel, can park inside the inner fence. It is this inner fenced area close to the working units that companies would most likely make off-limits.

Chas.

This is a great step for the safety of Texas workers. I sent my thanks to Senator Hegar for his sponsorship and his vote.

Charles L. Cotton= wrote:It is highly unlikely a company will set up a "special" lot just for people with guns in cars. About the only place I can see this actually being used is in the petrochemical industry. Plants commonly have a general parking area for most people including employees, and an inner fenced area protecting the plant. Some people, typically supervisory personnel, can park inside the inner fence. It is this inner fenced area close to the working units that companies would most likely make off-limits.

Chas.

I work for a certain Defense Contractor located just West of Sealy. Along with firearms, other items prohibited on company property include cameras. There is a big sign outside the guard shack saying to the effect of " no firearms (including CHL) and cameras beyond this point. Personal items being removed from your car are subject to inspection." They do have a parking area that is accessible prior to the guard shack. Upon being hired, I was briefed that you can leave your camera phone in your car in that lot. No guns though.

If and when the parking lot bill passes, I imagine that is the lot in which you will be allowed to leave your handgun in your car.


BTW: I have a real interest in getting this law passed. As it stands, my employer's idiotic policy violates my 2d Amendment rights by forcing me to be disarmed from the time I leave the house until I get back home at night unless I want to risk losing a well-paying job with good benefits. I like being able to feed myself.

Charles, this bill is much better than either HB 992 or HB 220 from last session. I appreciate the efforts of everyone involved with getting this bill put together and filed.

I do, however, have a couple of problems with this bill.

During the last legislative session all Texans benefited from two outstanding pieces of legislation that were signed into law by Governor Perry.

First and foremost was the Castle Doctrine Bill (SB 378). One of the changes to the Texas Penal Code enacted by SB 378 had to do with determining when deadly force is justified:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);...

The highlights are mine. Note that Texas law equates an individuals vehicle or place of employment with their habitation when it comes to justification for using deadly force. Note also that an individual does not need to have a CHL to be justified in the use of deadly force.

HB 1815, the Motorist Protection Act, was another quality piece of Texas legislation that became law during the last session. HB 1815 basically, for the law abiding Texan, decriminalized the act of carrying a concealed handgun inside a vehicle.

Texas law recognises an individuals vehicle is an extension of their castle. An officer of the law must have a warrant, probable cause, or permission to search a private vehicle. Texas law also recognises an individuals right to keep and bear arms while in their vehicle. Texas law should protect that same individual from an employer who would attempt to punish an employee for exercising this basic human right. It should not matter if the individual has a CHL or not.

That being said, this is a good bill and at first glance really does not adversely affect most folks who do not have a CHL and currently have a firearm in their vehicle.

I just feel that all law abiding Texans who carry a firearm in their vehicle under the the Motorist Protection Act should be protected under this bill also.

Read it again. It does cover those under the Motorist Protection Act if I am not mistaken. I don't think this means ONLY a CHL, but a CHL or an employee who otherwise lawfully posseses a firearm.

(a) 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.

jrosto wrote:Charles, this bill is much better than either HB 992 or HB 220 from last session. I appreciate the efforts of everyone involved with getting this bill put together and filed.

I do, however, have a couple of problems with this bill.

During the last legislative session all Texans benefited from two outstanding pieces of legislation that were signed into law by Governor Perry.

First and foremost was the Castle Doctrine Bill (SB 378). One of the changes to the Texas Penal Code enacted by SB 378 had to do with determining when deadly force is justified:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);...

The highlights are mine. Note that Texas law equates an individuals vehicle or place of employment with their habitation when it comes to justification for using deadly force. Note also that an individual does not need to have a CHL to be justified in the use of deadly force.

HB 1815, the Motorist Protection Act, was another quality piece of Texas legislation that became law during the last session. HB 1815 basically, for the law abiding Texan, decriminalized the act of carrying a concealed handgun inside a vehicle.

Texas law recognises an individuals vehicle is an extension of their castle. An officer of the law must have a warrant, probable cause, or permission to search a private vehicle. Texas law also recognises an individuals right to keep and bear arms while in their vehicle. Texas law should protect that same individual from an employer who would attempt to punish an employee for exercising this basic human right. It should not matter if the individual has a CHL or not.

That being said, this is a good bill and at first glance really does not adversely affect most folks who do not have a CHL and currently have a firearm in their vehicle.

I just feel that all law abiding Texans who carry a firearm in their vehicle under the the Motorist Protection Act should be protected under this bill also.

Would my vehicle be excluded?

dawgfishboy wrote:Would my vehicle be excluded?

"locked, privately owned motor vehicle"

Keith, that comma makes all the difference.

Thanks. If I would have read the bill slower it would have saved me one heck of a lot of typing.

This is no good for me, as my employer is in a building with limited access parking garage with a badged gate.

Darn.