Do I correctly understand the law?

[baldeagle]

I work at a state-owned educational institution. If I understand the law correctly, it is legal for me to carry to a state-owned educational institution and secure the weapon in my vehicle. Am I right?

Texas Penal Code Section 46

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:

(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;

(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;

(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;

(5) in an amusement park; or

(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.

(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity.

(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.

(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the security officer's employment, the security officer violates a provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

(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.

Nowhere in 46.035 does it state that it is illegal for me to carry concealed on the campus. However.....

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):

(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;

(c) In this section:

(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035.

So, it's legal for me to carry to a state-owned educational institution but not at a state-owned educational institution, correct?

[gigag04]

At UTD yes, not in UTD as in a building.

[Scott Farkus]

I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to whether it is technically legal for you to carry on campus as long as you don't enter a building, but as an employee, you are required to follow the personnel policies of your employer, in this case UTD. I believe in another thread you indicated that they prohibited employees from carrying firearms to work or having them in their cars while parked on UTD property. As I understand it, you have to comply with that or risk being fired on the spot if caught.

I am in exactly the same situation with a different state agency and it is infuriating that they are getting away with it. This is the main reason I have not gotten my CHL yet - I would effectively not be able to carry 5 days a week.

[dicion]

, but as an employee, you are required to follow the personnel policies of your employer

Required by what? Employer Policy? Sounds like Circular logic "You are required, by employer policy, to follow employer policies!"
You don't HAVE to follow employer policies. it is not the LAW to comply with employer policies.

You have to comply with that or risk being fired on the spot if caught.

That's the only repercussion. It is not illegal, so it's up to you if you consider the risk worth the reward.
Is there a chance they'll search your vehicle? How often has this happened in the past? Do they even know what vehicle is yours?
These are all questions you have to ask yourself and determine if it's worth it to you.

[Purplehood]

I might know of many people at my job that might transport their weapons to the vehicles that they might park in the employers garage, despite what might be company policies that might prohibit this practice.

[terryg]

I also work at a university - but a privately funded one. I seriously weigh the benefits/risks of violating employer policy by carrying to and from work and leaving the gun in my car. I know a few employees who do take this risk. I, currently, do not.

One of the primary differences in this scenario for someone working for a university versus another employer is in the event of theft. If someone breaks into your car and steals your weapon or even steals your entire car while on university property, the campus police department will be the agency filing the police report - not HPD or DPD or whatever city department in which the university is located.

[Charles L. Cotton]

One of the primary differences in this scenario for someone working for a university versus another employer is in the event of theft. If someone breaks into your car and steals your weapon or even steals your entire car while on university property, the campus police department will be the agency filing the police report - not HPD or DPD or whatever city department in which the university is located.

Thanks for this post; I never thought of that angle. A theft under these circumstances would force you to disclose something that may well cost you your job in addition to losing a car/gun. More ammo for the 2011 Texas Legislative Session. (Yeah, the pun was intended.)

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

, but as an employee, you are required to follow the personnel policies of your employer

Required by what? Employer Policy? Sounds like Circular logic "You are required, by employer policy, to follow employer policies!"
You don't HAVE to follow employer policies. it is not the LAW to comply with employer policies.

If you mean you do not violate the Penal Code by violating an employer's workforce policies, you are generally correct. However, there are potential legal ramifications for violating an employer's policies aside from getting fired. Being fired "for cause" will bar you from collecting unemployment benefits and depending upon how long you have worked for an employer, you may lose retirement benefits as well. In the university setting, it can cost you tenure as well. If you have health insurance provided, you will lose that and the much higher cost of COBRA may put health insurance out of reach of someone who is unemployed. All of these are legal consequences, although not related to penal code violations.

Minimizing the downside of violating an employer's "no guns in the parking lot" rules doesn't help us pass an "employers' parking lot" bill in 2011. There's a heck of a lot to lose, especially in a very tight job market.

Chas.

[baldeagle]

I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to whether it is technically legal for you to carry on campus as long as you don't enter a building, but as an employee, you are required to follow the personnel policies of your employer, in this case UTD. I believe in another thread you indicated that they prohibited employees from carrying firearms to work or having them in their cars while parked on UTD property. As I understand it, you have to comply with that or risk being fired on the spot if caught.

I am in exactly the same situation with a different state agency and it is infuriating that they are getting away with it. This is the main reason I have not gotten my CHL yet - I would effectively not be able to carry 5 days a week.

You may be recalling this discussion about Texas Tech.

[dicion]

, but as an employee, you are required to follow the personnel policies of your employer

Required by what? Employer Policy? Sounds like Circular logic "You are required, by employer policy, to follow employer policies!"
You don't HAVE to follow employer policies. it is not the LAW to comply with employer policies.

If you mean you do not violate the Penal Code by violating an employer's workforce policies, you are generally correct. However, there are potential legal ramifications for violating an employer's policies aside from getting fired. Being fired "for cause" will bar you from collecting unemployment benefits and depending upon how long you have worked for an employer, you may lose retirement benefits as well. In the university setting, it can cost you tenure as well. If you have health insurance provided, you will lose that and the much higher cost of COBRA may put health insurance out of reach of someone who is unemployed. All of these are legal consequences, although not related to penal code violations.

Minimizing the downside of violating an employer's "no guns in the parking lot" rules doesn't help us pass an "employers' parking lot" bill in 2011. There's a heck of a lot to lose, especially in a very tight job market.

Chas.

Oh, I understand, and agree completely. I meant that they're not going to be hauled off in handcuffs, and thrown in jail for violating employer policy.

I also agree that the Employee Parking Lot bill is a VERY important piece of legislation that we HAVE to get passed this session

[sf340b]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have received notice from your employer through the employee manual or "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice" orally, and the notice includes the parking lot or grounds, aren't you violating 30.06 by having a HG on or about your person?

If you are not violating 30.06, why is there an effort to get a parking lot bill passed for a non-violation?

It is my understanding that "notice" for employees is not limited to the specific sign under 30.06.
It is my understanding that "premises" for employees is not limited to the definition in .411.


PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chap- ter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that: (A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or (B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart. (b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the
owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section: (1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means: (A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (con- cealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[Purplehood]

My personal reasoning for leaving a carry in the car is that the employers policy makes a vague mention of the word "authorized" in the policy. I haven't questioned the wording with HR as that seems like a bad idea to me.

[baldeagle]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have received notice from your employer through the employee manual or "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice" orally, and the notice includes the parking lot or grounds, aren't you violating 30.06 by having a HG on or about your person?

IANAL, but my answer would be yes. In my case, effective notice has not been provided. There's also the issue that a state-owned educational institution is government property. (More on that later.)

If you are not violating 30.06, why is there an effort to get a parking lot bill passed for a non-violation?

Because, at present, property owners have the right, under the law, to disallow the possession of firearms on their property (not just premises), which includes their parking lots. So, effectively, you cannot carry during the week, because you cannot secure your weapon in your car while at work. Furthermore, a store, mall or what have you could ban guns from their parking lot, and you would not even be able to park there, much less shop there.

I think the point of the parking lot bill is that private property owners have every right to ban weapons from their premises, but they should not be able to effectively disarm you by banning them from their parking lots as well.

It is my understanding that "notice" for employees is not limited to the specific sign under 30.06.
It is my understanding that "premises" for employees is not limited to the definition in .411.

Again, IANAL, but I think that's incorrect. The premises is the premises, which is the buildings only. The property includes the parking lot.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chap- ter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that: (A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or (B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart. (b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the
owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section: (1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means: (A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (con- cealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

So, if I'm reading section (3)(B)(e) correctly, a state-owned educational institution cannot prohibit carrying in their parking lots because they are a government entity.

That would mean that I can carry to work, secure my weapon in the car while I'm at work, then carry again when I leave for the day. That's satisfactory to me until campus carry get's passed.

[pt145ss]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have received notice from your employer through the employee manual or "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice" orally, and the notice includes the parking lot or grounds, aren't you violating 30.06 by having a HG on or about your person?

If you are not violating 30.06, why is there an effort to get a parking lot bill passed for a non-violation?

It is my understanding that "notice" for employees is not limited to the specific sign under 30.06.
It is my understanding that "premises" for employees is not limited to the definition in .411.


PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chap- ter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that: (A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or (B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart. (b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the
owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section: (1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means: (A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (con- cealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

its all about "effective" notice. If the employee manual is written with the correct language than it is a violation. If not writtin in the correct language, than there is no legal violation just a policy violation for which they can probably fire for.

If notice is given verbally, then it is only a legal violation if you fail to leave after receiveing notice.

[terryg]

One of the primary differences in this scenario for someone working for a university versus another employer is in the event of theft. If someone breaks into your car and steals your weapon or even steals your entire car while on university property, the campus police department will be the agency filing the police report - not HPD or DPD or whatever city department in which the university is located.

Thanks for this post; I never thought of that angle. A theft under these circumstances would force you to disclose something that may well cost you your job in addition to losing a car/gun. More ammo for the 2011 Texas Legislative Session. (Yeah, the pun was intended.)

Chas.

Need more ammo? Imagine driving on campus just to get to the parking lot and being pulled over by the campus police. If you had a weapon in your vehicle, at that point you are obligated to present your CHL. We all know what the next question from the officer is.