priorities

[A-R]

This is all very simple to me. My car, my rules. If you allow me to park my car on your property, then you allow anything I have in my car at the time. Simple. Your rights as property owner of a parking lot or garage end where my rights as a property owner of a vehicle begin. As long as I leave it in my car, then it's none of your business.

In other words, extend the same rights we enjoy in our homes to our cars.

Which brings me to a scary thought ...

If a company can tell you what you will or will not have in your personal vehicle while on "company time", then what's to stop a company from saying you can't carry a gun while working on behalf of the company within your own home? Maybe you're using a company-provided notebook computer or cell phone to conduct company business from your home? Maybe you're a telecommuter? You're effectively working on "company time" - can they tell you that you can't have a gun near you while you're working in your own home on company time?

All goes back to my very simple solution above ... my car, my rules. Same applies to the home - my home, my rules. A company requiring me (or allowing me) to perform company work using my personal property (my home, my car) does not give the company superiority over my rights to use my personal property as I see fit.

[3dfxMM]

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...

The first one describes the case where the individual was not effectively notified in compliance with 30.06.

The second one is talking about places that are statutorily prohibited, not private businesses posting 30.06 signs.

[tacticool]

The first one describes the case where the individual was not effectively notified in compliance with 30.06.

The second one is talking about places that are statutorily prohibited, not private businesses posting 30.06 signs.

46.035 is not 30.06 nor 30.05

For people that think 30.05 and 30.06 apply only to buildings, I encourage you to jump the fence at a critical infrastructure facility and base your legal defense on the fact you didn't enter a building.

[tacticool]

This is all very simple to me. My car, my rules. If you allow me to park my car on your property, then you allow anything I have in my car at the time.

Permission to park is not unconditional. You may have permission to park but your vehicle may be towed, and you may face disciplinary action, if you park in a spot reserved for executives or handicapped individuals, or violate other parking rules.

Extending your argument, 30.06 and 46.03 and 46.035 would be generally invalid, because if they allow you to wear clothes they must allow anything you have under your clothes at the time. That's obviously a flawed argument, and would invalidate a Terry Stop because what's under the suspect's clothes is none of their business.

[The Annoyed Man]

The first one describes the case where the individual was not effectively notified in compliance with 30.06.

The second one is talking about places that are statutorily prohibited, not private businesses posting 30.06 signs.

46.035 is not 30.06 nor 30.05

For people that think 30.05 and 30.06 apply only to buildings, I encourage you to jump the fence at a critical infrastructure facility and base your legal defense on the fact you didn't enter a building.

But isn't the "critical infrastructure" section already covered separately without 30.05 & 30.06? I'm thinking I must be confused, because I've seen a lot of places posted with 30.06 signs, but the parking lots weren't covered. The Baylor hospitals and the Grapevine Mills mall come immediately to mind. So what you're saying then is that, if those 30.06 signs had been posted at the parking lot entrances instead of the building entrances, then I couldn't even park there and secure my weapon in the car?

That further proves, in my mind, the need for a parking lot bill, if that's true.

[dicion]

As Stated before by the wonderful Mr Rothstein:

-30.06 only applies if you are carrying under CHL.
-CHL is an exception to the application of 46.02
-46.02 says that having a firearm in your vehicle is not illegal, therefore you do not need the exception, therefore you are not carrying under CHL
-Since you are not carrying under CHL, but rather exempted from 46.02, the 30.06 sign does not apply to you at that time.
-If you were to exit your vehicle with the firearm, then the 30.06 would immediately apply to you, since you are no longer carrying under MPA.

Section 411 Govt code has nothing to do with what you are currently carrying under, but stated rather that if you have a CHL, and a firearm with you at the time (regardless of what you're carrying under), you need to present the CHL if asked for ID. So even though you would need to present the CHL if asked, you are not carrying under it's authority. As Steve also stated, Technically, a LEO with a CHL would also have to present it when asked for ID, even though he doesn't need its authority to carry anywhere. Heck, if asked for ID at a professional football game, he would still be legally required to present his CHL, even though a pro football game if off limits.

I submit the following for evidence to back my case:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34080&p=400801#p400801" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33608&p=394755#p394755" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[A-R]

This is all very simple to me. My car, my rules. If you allow me to park my car on your property, then you allow anything I have in my car at the time.

Permission to park is not unconditional. You may have permission to park but your vehicle may be towed, and you may face disciplinary action, if you park in a spot reserved for executives or handicapped individuals, or violate other parking rules.

Your examples are external infractions having nothing whatsoever to do with what legal items I choose to keep inside my vehicle.

Extending your argument, 30.06 and 46.03 and 46.035 would be generally invalid, because if they allow you to wear clothes they must allow anything you have under your clothes at the time. That's obviously a flawed argument, and would invalidate a Terry Stop because what's under the suspect's clothes is none of their business.

You're talking about two different levels of authority. "They" who allow me to wear certain clothes, I think if I'm understanding you correctly, is an employer, so yeah as long as it's legal it's none of their business what I wear under my approved work attire. Trying to avoid violating the 9-year-old rule here, but if someone chooses to wear S&M leather gear under their business suit or, like J. Edgar Hoover, women's underwear under their business suit, that's none of the company's business either - as long as it stays private and hidden from view. Obviously, if they post a property PC 30.06 then by law that means I cannot wear a gun under my clothing. But that's not really what I was talking about in my original post. I was talking more specifically about company's banning employees from keep a gun legally in their car while they're at work. To me, telling an employee they can't keep something legal in their car at work is just as egregious as a company telling an employee they can't keep something legal at home. It's none of the company's business.

As for the Terry Stop thing, that's a different level of authority - namely law enforcement.

[tacticool]

So what you're saying then is that, if those 30.06 signs had been posted at the parking lot entrances instead of the building entrances, then I couldn't even park there and secure my weapon in the car?

That's how I read the law. Neither 30.05 nor 30.06 exclude parking lots or other grounds. Both refer to property, which is different than premises, in defining the offense. Furthermore, 30.05 explicitly references forest land and agricultural land, which are obviously not buildings but are property that can be posted.

The ExxonMobil facility at 3120 Buffalo Speedway in Houston has signs at the entrance gate, and I think that makes the whole property inside the gates legally posted, but IANAL.

[3dfxMM]

As Stated before by the wonderful Mr Rothstein:

-30.06 only applies if you are carrying under CHL.
-CHL is an exception to the application of 46.02
-46.02 says that having a firearm in your vehicle is not illegal, therefore you do not need the exception, therefore you are not carrying under CHL
-Since you are not carrying under CHL, but rather exempted from 46.02, the 30.06 sign does not apply to you at that time.
-If you were to exit your vehicle with the firearm, then the 30.06 would immediately apply to you, since you are no longer carrying under MPA.

Section 411 Govt code has nothing to do with what you are currently carrying under, but stated rather that if you have a CHL, and a firearm with you at the time (regardless of what you're carrying under), you need to present the CHL if asked for ID. So even though you would need to present the CHL if asked, you are not carrying under it's authority. As Steve also stated, Technically, a LEO with a CHL would also have to present it when asked for ID, even though he doesn't need its authority to carry anywhere. Heck, if asked for ID at a professional football game, he would still be legally required to present his CHL, even though a pro football game if off limits.

I submit the following for evidence to back my case:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34080&p=400801#p400801" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33608&p=394755#p394755" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's what I was referring to in my post. Mr. Rothstein certainly has credentials that lend credence to what he says, but that is still just his personal take on how it works. As far as I know, there is no case law on the subject. Has anyone here heard of an instance where this type of thing has come up?

[tacticool]

You're talking about two different levels of authority. "They" who allow me to wear certain clothes, I think if I'm understanding you correctly, is an employer, so yeah as long as it's legal it's none of their business what I wear under my approved work attire.

It seems you're saying both 30.06 and company policy don't apply in buildings either, as long as the gun is concealed under your clothing. I disagree but don't have the time to debate this further, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[A-R]

You're talking about two different levels of authority. "They" who allow me to wear certain clothes, I think if I'm understanding you correctly, is an employer, so yeah as long as it's legal it's none of their business what I wear under my approved work attire.

It seems you're saying both 30.06 and company policy don't apply in buildings either, as long as the gun is concealed under your clothing. I disagree but don't have the time to debate this further, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Next time, try reading my entire post before you respond ....

You're talking about two different levels of authority. "They" who allow me to wear certain clothes, I think if I'm understanding you correctly, is an employer, so yeah as long as it's legal it's none of their business what I wear under my approved work attire. ... Obviously, if they post a property PC 30.06 then by law that means I cannot wear a gun under my clothing.

But I think both of our intended points have diverged to the point of incoherence from a debating standpoint. We probably believe more "alike" than we realize, but we're talking past each other. So yeah, I'm gonna drop it now too. In a nutshell, I don't think an employer should be allowed to prohibit me from carrying unless they do so with a proper 30.06 notification. But that debate quickly becomes more of an employment law discussion than a CHL discussion. So at this point, I digress.

[Oldgringo]

Guys, I hate to rain on your parade, I really do; however, your eloquent and meritacious arguments, pro and con, are the reason that "they" invented courthouses and lawyers.

[boba]

This is all very simple to me. My car, my rules.

Their parking lot, their rules. You have the right to park somewhere else if you refuse to follow the property owner's rules.

[hangfour]

I know this is "hard line", but I believe that all human difficulty comes from broken agreements. Therefore I make very few of them and to the best of my ability keep each and every one that I make. If my employer has a no-carry policy and I carry, I would be breaking an agreement (either implicit or explicit). If I felt my need to carry superseded my desire to keep the job that forbids carrying, I would get another job without question rather than live with a broken agreement. As they say: "Chickens come home to roost".

[ChattyKat]

If I felt my need to carry superseded my desire to keep the job that forbids carrying, I would get another job without question rather than live with a broken agreement.

It appears you saying that, if you felt compelled to carry in your workplace where company policy (not a properly-posted 30.06 sign) forbids it, you would resign from the job rather than break a spoken or written company policy.