TexasCHLforum.com

What is more important, a person's right to defend themselves from bodily harm, or a company's private property rights? Having security that attempts to keep folks without a badge out is not enough. IF they can guarantee no firearms such as in an airport that is one thing. Otherwise, I believe we should push to not allow the lawsuit averse conservatism of corporations to supercede right to carry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_discovery_channel_gunman

I am right there with you. My rights should trump the ignorant paranoid folks I work for, but otherwise it is a great job.

I agree, and the forthcoming employer parking lot bill is a large step in this direction. I think that once that's passed, then we can attempt to press further on this issue.

I think the next step after the parking lot bill, would be to keep allowing employers to allow the ban of guns on their premises (via valid 30.06 notice), but legislatively spell out they they have no right to prevent their employees from carrying outside their physical premises, even while they are working.

My problem is, I'm out on the road, and in the field a lot, by myself, sometimes in the dead of night, working on equipment. I'm in a company truck, on company time, so according to (non 30.06 compliant written) company policy, I cannot carry. You can probably guess what I choose to do on those 3am callouts... but I do so at risk to my employment. I would prefer that it was spelled out that employers have no right to prevent carry off of their own physical premises, and cannot terminate an employee for legally doing so.

If you are on company time, even out of the office. You should be subject to company rules. If you don't like them, you are free to start your own business.


I think I read something about "cover up and shut up". Good advice, as long as you realize there is a chance you'll be fired for it.

In Texas, they don't have to have a reason to fire you. You're not going to see a law get passed saying they can't fire you for carrying a gun on company time and against their explicit policy.

Private Property rights, I do not want anybody telling me what is allowed within my property unless it has a verifiable negative effect or is dangerous to those around me. People are not forced to work for a specific company, If they do not like the company rules then go work someplace else they have the freedom to do that. There are certain things that we have the power to change others we just need to buck up and live with.

I'm a big believer in private property rights.
But
If I can't carry at work, or at least leave my weapon in my vehicle at work, that effectively disarms me when going to and from work. Most of my errands are run on the way home from or on the way to work. So not having the ability to store a firearm in my vehicle in my employer's parking lot means that I'm disarmed nearly all the time except when I'm at home.
So just get another job.
Jobs aren't all that easy to come buy these days. And it seems that most companies have similar firearms policies. If it were one employer in any given town, I'd say let the employees who disagree with the policy just go elsewhere. But given the propensity for anti-gun policies, it makes a huge dent in our ability to exercise our right to keep and bear arms, even for those who've gone to the trouble of proving their background and their competence to get a CHL. At that point, I think private property rights need to be stepped on a little bit in order to allow the right to be armed for self-defense.

Charger wrote:What is more important, a person's right to defend themselves from bodily harm, or a company's private property rights? Having security that attempts to keep folks without a badge out is not enough. IF they can guarantee no firearms such as in an airport that is one thing. Otherwise, I believe we should push to not allow the lawsuit averse conservatism of corporations to supercede right to carry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_discovery_channel_gunman

I don't even agree with the airport exclusion. Not merely on second amendment grounds (I don't see "except in ports" in the Bill of Rights) but on practical grounds. "Ports" being the 1776 equivalent of our modern airports.

Here is a "what if" that I posed to a Northeastern liberal friend who lost her brother in the 9/11 attacks. I asked "what if each person boarding those 4 planes that morning were issued a handgun as they entered the aircraft?" That would have made it a couple of hundred guns against a few in each plane, effectively flip-flopping the odds that otherwise were in place.

You should have seen the dumbfounded look on her face. She admitted that in all probability none of those planes would have gone down and her brother would still be here today.

I'm back.

Sorry for staying gone for so long. Greetings to Charles, SeamusTX, StevieD64, Longtooth and everyone else, hello to all of the newbs.

I just started coming back and visiting this forum again recently. Long story on my absence. Been really busy.

I could not resist this thread.

Property rights.

What is in my pocket and on my person is no concern of anyone else, I don't care what business you are in.

Your rights end where my person starts.

If I come into your presence, your business, I do not care what is on your person and you should not care what is on mine.

You can have your private property rights intact without even knowing what is on my person.

Anygunanywhere

Charger wrote:What is more important, a person's right to defend themselves from bodily harm, or a company's private property rights?

A property owner's right to control firearms on their private property is more important than

• The government's power to restrict adults from having firearms in public schools
• The government's power to restrict jurors from carrying in public courts
• The government's power to restrict voters from carrying in polling places
• The government's power to unilaterally restrict licensed carry in bars, at sporting events, etc.
• The government's power to restrict open carry by licensed citizens
• The government's power to restrict unlicensed carry by adult non-felons
• The government's power to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons, silencers, etc.

Here's the thing... if a person is hurt while within a company's property, that company is liable. For example, I trip while walking down the stairs and break my ankle. The company is liable for my injuries. If someone walks up behind me and pushes me down the stairs, the company is also liable for my injuries, even if the person that did the pushing is not a company employee. That is the entire reason why companies have no desire to allow carrying; they have no desire to get sued when someone's gun accidentally goes off. Since nobody has been sued for not having been allowed to defend themselves due to a 30.06 policy, they have no fear of the opposite side of the lawsuit.

In other words, this isnt about private property rights as much as it is about cost avoidance. If you want to change the mind set you make it more costly to negate the right to carry than to allow it.

Salty1 wrote:Private Property rights, I do not want anybody telling me what is allowed within my property unless it has a verifiable negative effect or is dangerous to those around me. People are not forced to work for a specific company, If they do not like the company rules then go work someplace else they have the freedom to do that. There are certain things that we have the power to change others we just need to buck up and live with.

My understanding of CHL and PC § 30.06 is that a CHL holder is allowed under the law to disarm and secure their weapon in their vehicle, in the parking lot, before entering the 30.06 posted premises.... ...."premises" meaning "the building(s)." My further understanding is that 30.06 applies only to buildings, not the accessible parking lots surrounding those buildings.

Now, given that, if I am a client about to enter the 30.06 posted building of a vendor, and I leave my gun secured in my vehicle, how exactly have I violated that company's private property rights? The answer? I haven't. I am in compliance with the law.

Let's extrapolate that to an employee of that same company who is in possession of a CHL... The company's building is posted 30.06. The employee may not enter with their weapon, regardless of whatever policy is stated in the employee manual. So, if the employee secures their weapon in their car, in the same parking lot I used, how have they violated the employer's private property rights? The answer? They haven't.... ...not anymore than I did in the preceding paragraph.

Now, HR policy may forbid the employee to have a gun in their car, but that is a separate issue, having to do with the mutually agreed upon terms of employment, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the employer's private property rights. If it did, then PC § 30.06 would not make it permissible for a non-employee CHL holder to secure their firearm in the car. If the building weren't posted, the employee could still be subject to termination according to the employee policy, but not to arrest and prosecution since the building is not posted.

The whole point of a "parking lot bill" which you may be overlooking, is to make it so that the CHL holder who is employed by that company will enjoy the same rights under the law as any other CHL holder. They still cannot enter the 30.06 posted building. They still cannot carry into the building in violation of employment policy on penalty of termination, but they will enjoy all the same rights as any other CHL holder.

For your position to be consistent, then you must categorically renounce the parking lot exception of 30.06 for all CHL holders. Is that your position?

Charger wrote:Here's the thing... if a person is hurt while within a company's property, that company is liable. For example, I trip while walking down the stairs and break my ankle. The company is liable for my injuries. If someone walks up behind me and pushes me down the stairs, the company is also liable for my injuries, even if the person that did the pushing is not a company employee. That is the entire reason why companies have no desire to allow carrying; they have no desire to get sued when someone's gun accidentally goes off. Since nobody has been sued for not having been allowed to defend themselves due to a 30.06 policy, they have no fear of the opposite side of the lawsuit.

In other words, this isnt about private property rights as much as it is about cost avoidance. If you want to change the mind set you make it more costly to negate the right to carry than to allow it.

BINGO, we have a winner! It IS all about money. Pretty much the bottom line of any secular subject is the bottom line.

My further understanding is that 30.06 applies only to buildings, not the accessible parking lots surrounding those buildings.

In this case your understanding is incorrect. Private businesses can post any part of their property they want to. If I recall correctly, 30.06 specifies "property" rather than "premises". Having said that, keep in mind that, according to Mr. Rothstein, the MPA has pretty much taken the teeth out of posting the parking lot.

3dfxMM wrote:

My further understanding is that 30.06 applies only to buildings, not the accessible parking lots surrounding those buildings.

In this case your understanding is incorrect. Private businesses can post any part of their property they want to. If I recall correctly, 30.06 specifies "property" rather than "premises". Having said that, keep in mind that, according to Mr. Rothstein, the MPA has pretty much taken the teeth out of posting the parking lot.

So how do you explain:

• PC §30.05 CRIMINAL TRESSPASS
  • (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.

...and...

• PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER
  • (f) In this section:
    • (3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area...