ACTION NEEDED! Employer parking lot bills

[CWOOD]

"Pending in Committee" essentially means that nothing official has yet been voted on.

In viewing the video you will note that there were some suggested changes/rewording for the bill. The committee will mull all that over and eventually come up with what is called "Committee Substitute". This is the bill, as revised, as it will be voted out of committee. It seems fairly clear that the bill WILL be voted out of committee favorably, and the "committee substitute" will be the new form of the bill which will go to the full Senate.

The video is worth to time to view it. The discussion of hte SB730 lasts about an hour. The video includes the entire committee meeting. The portion dealing with SB 730 runs from about 8:20 minutes to about 1 hour 7:30 minutes in the time stamp.

[artx]

SB730 shows "placed on intent calendar" after it was voted out of committee.

Is the intent calendar visible to us plebes?

[Charles L. Cotton]

SB730 shows "placed on intent calendar" after it was voted out of committee.

Is the intent calendar visible to us plebes?

It means it's coming to the Senate floor for debate.

Chas.

[artx]

SB730 shows "placed on intent calendar" after it was voted out of committee.

Is the intent calendar visible to us plebes?

It means it's coming to the Senate floor for debate.

Chas.

Is there any way to tell when the floor debate will occur (as in, when I should see the yea/nay results?) I looked a bit for a public schedule but didn't see one.

[artx]

SB 730 passed the Senate :) Still waiting on the yea/nay counts.

Also, I found the list of scheduled votes for each day - look at this website under the link "Today's Votes"

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/

[Right2Carry]

Since my current employer has a fenced secured parking area that is badged entry, it is my understanding that if they forbid me from parking in that parking lot that they will need to provide an alternative place to lock up my firearm or provide alternative parking close to to the main parking area. My question is will the alternative parking have to meet the requirements of the main parking IE, security camera's, badged gate access, and fenced perimeter?

I can see employers providing alternative parking that is not up to the same standards as the sheep parking lot. It appears that they could discriminate against CHL holders by providing less than desirable parking.

Just my .02. Any thoughts?

[Keith B]

Since my current employer has a fenced secured parking area that is badged entry, it is my understanding that if they forbid me from parking in that parking lot that they will need to provide an alternative place to lock up my firearm or provide alternative parking close to to the main parking area. My question is will the alternative parking have to meet the requirements of the main parking IE, security camera's, badged gate access, and fenced perimeter?

I can see employers providing alternative parking that is not up to the same standards as the sheep parking lot. It appears that they could discriminate against CHL holders by providing less than desirable parking.

Just my .02. Any thoughts?

All it states in the bill is alternative close parking. I can imagine it will not be inside the gated area and not have the security of the other lot, and will not be required to be.

However, if there is no parking area like that presently, or something close that could easily be converted, IMO it would be cheaper for them to put up a secured set of lockers or just allow you to keep it inside the gated area.

[KD5NRH]

However, if there is no parking area like that presently, or something close that could easily be converted, IMO it would be cheaper for them to put up a secured set of lockers or just allow you to keep it inside the gated area.

Especially since most employers aren't going to have an easy time just obtaining a whole new parking lot right next door.

Another question would be, is the employer making sufficient effort if the alternative lot is always full? If that doesn't count against them, they could, in theory, provide one "guns OK" parking space and call their obligation fulfilled.

[will381796]

However, if there is no parking area like that presently, or something close that could easily be converted, IMO it would be cheaper for them to put up a secured set of lockers or just allow you to keep it inside the gated area.

Especially since most employers aren't going to have an easy time just obtaining a whole new parking lot right next door.

Another question would be, is the employer making sufficient effort if the alternative lot is always full? If that doesn't count against them, they could, in theory, provide one "guns OK" parking space and call their obligation fulfilled.

The entire alternate parking lot kind of doesn't seem like that great of an idea if it's gonna be something publicly known: "Okay bad guys: all of the cars over here in this gated, secured parking lot do not have guns. All of the cars over in this open, un-secured parking lot are reserved for people keeping guns in their car. Go over there if you need to get a gun quickly." And if an employer charges for parking, couldn't they theoretically charge those in the "gun lot" an exorbitant amount to park there? I mean, I pay over $500.00 a year to park at my University. Anything preventing them from saying "you can park over in this lot with a gun in your car, but it's gonna cost you $1,000 a year"?

What if they provide you with storage lockers for your gun, but they're located inside the premises? And the premises is posted 30.06. Seems like they fulfilled the requirements by the law but it still won't do anything for you. lol

[Keith B]

I think employers could try to play games, but IMO the majority of them will just figure out how to rightfully meet the law or open up their lots to have it in their car. They would probably be surprised at how many folks do it already and just keep their mouth shut so no one knows it.

[Quick6]

They would probably be surprised at how many folks do it already and just keep their mouth shut so no one knows it.

Amen.

[TrueFlog]

I think employers could try to play games, but IMO the majority of them will just figure out how to rightfully meet the law or open up their lots to have it in their car. They would probably be surprised at how many folks do it already and just keep their mouth shut so no one knows it.

Agreed. Remember, similar legislation exists in a number of other states already, and we don't see those kinds of shenanigans going on. It's also worth noting that a secured parking lot isn't automatically off-limits. This bill states that employers may ban guns in secured lots - it doesn't state that they have to. I suspect that most employers would just allow guns in all parking lots rather than trying to buy land and pave it for new, unsecured lots or trying to install and manage gun lockers. Finally, I'm sure that there are a variety of federal and state regulations (such as OSHA, ADA, etc.) that govern employer-provided parking lots and dictate capacity, accessibility, etc. These regulations would undoubtedly cover any new unsecured lots and should assuage any fears about "What if the lot only has one parking space?" or "What if the lot is surrounded by land mines?"

[Charles L. Cotton]

If an employer wants to ban firearms from certain parking lots, they have to provide an alternative parking area that is "reasonably close to the main parking area . . ." Nothing else is specified about the alternate parking area. It doesn't have to have the same security or amenities, but the vast majority of employees park in areas that are not high secure areas now. I seriously doubt many employers will opt for the alternate parking lots, but if they do and if the employee feels there is a risk of losing their gun to a vehicle burglary, then they will have to evaluate that risk and decide if they want to take a gun to work.

Anyone who listened to the debate on SB730 in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, or HB1301 in the House Public Safety Committee realizes that the entire Texas business community is lined up against us on this issue. Add to that the huge amount of money spent by the Texas Chemical Counsel and you see what we are up against. The alternative parking lot or lock box was a necessary provision to get the bill passed. In my view, it's a very minor concession. I can assure you folks, passing a bill isn't like ordering dinner from a menu. We can't simply say, "no thanks, we're not having alternative parking lots today." Since this bill does not require notification (a/k/a Southwest Airlines method) and is not limited to CHLs as was the case last session, this is a huge victory. But it's still not over. The bill could be killed at a number of stops on its way through the House so don't get complacent and be ready to turn on the phones and faxes if/when it becomes necessary.

Chas.

[Skiprr]

I am, though, extremely encouraged by the Senate vote: 31-0! I think that sends a definite message to both the business lobbyists and to the members of the House.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6341952.html

[Mike1951]

A sticking point in last session's failed attempt was the requirement to notify the employer. Many feared retribution from the employer who might penalize the employee later for a trumped up, unrelated issue.

If an employee must request either secured lockup or alternative parking, the effect is the same.