Employer parking lot bill has been filed by Sen. Hegar

[Keith B]

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

Darn.

If it passes they have to provide a alternative parking lot or allow you in the limited access lot.

[boomerang]

If it passes they have to provide a alternative parking lot or allow you in the limited access lot.

Or outsource their parking.

[dawgfishboy]

Would my vehicle be excluded?

"locked, privately owned motor vehicle"

I wonder if a bike locker can cover the 'locked' requirement?

I've email Senator Hegar my displeasure on the 'motor' requirement.

[FlynJay]

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

Chas.

Done.

[jimlongley]

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

Darn.

I think, and IANAL, that the 'and' means that the limited access badged lot would then have to provide a secure locking area.

Of course I would have a problem accessing that locker or whatever, because it would expose me as a CHL carrying.

[CWOOD]

Email of thanks to Sen. Hagar sent.

Email to encourage support of SB730 to my Sen. Watson sent.

[Morgan]

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

Darn.

So they must either provide you a place to park your car with your gun in it or a place to secure the gun. What's not good for you about that?

[Purplehood]

As mentioned earlier, separate facilities is like putting a sign on your vehicle, "GUN ON BOARD". If an employer just says, "Yeah, okay they can park in our lot now", that would be fine.

I hate to gripe, but "separate but equal" has never really been popular...

[Mike1951]

I would like to pick a nit here regarding whether this would apply to non-CHL.

Sec.A52.061.AARESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO
OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION.

(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,

(d)AAThis section does not prohibit a public or private
employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm

(e)AAThis section does not prohibit an employer from
prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed
handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or who
otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm

(g)AAThis section does not authorize a person who holds a
license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm

Sections (d) & (e) contain a very important OR that is absent from sections (a) & (g).

(a) & (g) could be interpreted as "a CHL, who lawfully possesses a firearm".

(d) & (e) could be interpreted as "a CHL, OR (someone) who lawfully possesses a firearm".

I find the inconsistency troubling.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I would like to pick a nit here regarding whether this would apply to non-CHL.

Sec.A52.061.AARESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO
OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION.

(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,

(d)AAThis section does not prohibit a public or private
employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm

(e)AAThis section does not prohibit an employer from
prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed
handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or who
otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm

(g)AAThis section does not authorize a person who holds a
license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm

Sections (d) & (e) contain a very important OR that is absent from sections (a) & (g).

(a) & (g) could be interpreted as "a CHL, who lawfully possesses a firearm".

(d) & (e) could be interpreted as "a CHL, OR (someone) who lawfully possesses a firearm".

I find the inconsistency troubling.

I see what you are saying, but we are okay; this bill covers all lawful possession.

§52.061(a) does not have the "or" you mention because the sentence has three alternatives in a string, each of them being an independent statutory element; "[1] . . . employee who holds a license to carry . . ., [2] who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or [3] who lawfully possesses ammunition . . ." Although it wouldn't be grammatically incorrect to include another "or" between the CHL portion and the "otherwise lawfully possesses" phrases, it would not be common sentence structure to do so. Whenever independent statutory elements are listed in a single sentence, common format is to place an "or" in front of the last element. Also, in order to read the bill as to require both a CHL and a requirement that they "lawfully possess" a firearm, it would be common structure to include "and" between those phrases, and/or leave out the comma separating the phrases.

Finally, the inclusion of the word "otherwise" in front of "lawfully possesses a firearm, . . ." indicates that it is contra to possessing a CHL, that is someone other than a CHL.

Plus, the legislative history is going to show the intent is to apply to all lawful possession.

Chas.

[peon]

letters sent.

[jlangton]

Excellent,I'll make sure my Rep gets call-but I already know his position on this.
JL

[tboesche]

I sent an E mail to Senator Davis encouragein her to support this bill. I will be sending a letter of thanks to Senator Hegar shortly.

[nitrogen]

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

Darn.

So they must either provide you a place to park your car with your gun in it or a place to secure the gun. What's not good for you about that?

What's not good about that? That i didn't read the whole thing, that's what

[ac-mech]

what about if the parking lot is posted 30.06?