Parking lot, parking lot what ya gonna do

[MoJo]

Today, at the burger joint after IDPA a friend asked me a question. He had a copy of a memo from the plant he works at saying the parking lot bill will go into effect in September. The memo said to be able to carry a concealed hand gun in your car you have to register with HR. I asked if the parking lot was fenced/gated/guarded he said no so I told him that the memo would probably be unenforceable. But, I wouldn't want to be the test case.

I haven't seen the text of the parking lot bill as signed by the governor so I would like some opinions from those who have read the bill.

[GhostTX]

I call bull. As long as the firearm is contained in your vehicle, the company can't do anything.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 00321F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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, or who lawfully
possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or
ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked,
privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or
other parking area the employer provides for employees.

As ever, IANAL.

[Shinesintx]

Dont care what the memo says...the new law does not include "have to register with HR". Have I seen the bill? No, just using the noggin the good Lord gave me.

[AEA]

Company Policy (even new Policy) does not trump the LAW. But it is up to you to decide if you follow the Law or the Company Policy.

[Mindslant]

The part today caught my attention is where you said he worked in a plant. Schools and chemical plants are the exception to the new law. As a teacher if my employer forbids the practice of keeping a fire arm in the car, its illegal. I've contacted the [Pre-paid legal service] to interpret the wording in my employee handbook, I would suggest your friend talk to a lawyer as well.

[GhostTX]

The part today caught my attention is where you said he worked in a plant. Schools and chemical plants are the exception to the new law. As a teacher if my employer forbids the practice of keeping a fire arm in the car, its illegal. I've contacted the [Pre-paid legal service] to interpret the wording in my employee handbook, I would suggest your friend talk to a lawyer as well.

Good point; however that is only inside a fenced or secure area.

Per the law:

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
..
(2) apply to:
...
(F) property owned or leased by a chemical
manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under
Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary
business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or
transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials,
except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and who stores a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by
law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a
parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer
provides for employees that is outside of a secured and restricted
area:
(i) that contains the physical plant;
(ii) that is not open to the public; and
(iii) the ingress into which is constantly
monitored by security personnel.

IANAL

OP, first link I posted is the text of the law.

[MoJo]

Thanks all, it is a chemical plant but, the parking lot is unfenced and not secured. I think the company is in the wrong demanding the employees register. I still don't have pockets deep enough to be the test case.

[Heartland Patriot]

All I know is that there is no such thing in Texas law requiring REGISTRATION of firearms. Our CHLs are basically to tell LEOs that we have been background checked, found to have a clean record, and we have an exemption to prosecution to CARRY. It tells them NOTHING about what firearms we have or do not have, nor is there any provision for that sort of thing. If that company doesn't have dogs being run through the parking lot on a regular basis, I would simply have it in my car anyway, and not say anything to anyone. The LAW is the LAW...sure it would be lousy to look for a new job if they found out and fired you for having it (while using some other trumped up excuse), but you sure won't be going to jail over it.

[canvasbck]

Thanks all, it is a chemical plant but, the parking lot is unfenced and not secured. I think the company is in the wrong demanding the employees register. I still don't have pockets deep enough to be the test case.

As I have stated before, I'm the FSO for a chemical plant. As part of my role, I had to develop the policy for our facility to be in compliance with the new law. Being a CHL holder, I was obviously biased towards being as permissive as I could get away with. While developing our policy, we conference called with several other companies to get a feel for what the "industry standard" was going to be. It is suprising how many companies are planning on requiring "firearms declaration forms". From what I could gain from the companies that will be instituting this form, I HIGHLY recommend that you fill out the form if you plan on bringing a firearm on the premises. Many of them are looking for opportunities to discipline/fire folks for violating company policy. One company, that will not be mentioned by name, is even planning on making employees list the brand, model, and serial number of any firearms that you intend to bring onto the property. They have stated that any employee that brings on a firearm that has not been declared will face termination. They are getting away from this because they are not prohibiting the employee from bringing the firearm onto the property, they are "just setting company policies for those who chose to store a firearm in their vehicle". There is a host of other rules that many of them are putting on employees who utilize the new law.

I have warned some of these companies that I believe that they are skating dangerously close to imposing a defacto ban on firearms by making it so difficult to comply with the companies' rules that very few would be in compliance. They didn't really care. I hope that someone is successful in sueing some of these Orwellian companies.

Suffice it to say that our facility has approved a procedure that not only comlies with the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law. CHL holders will not have to fill out silly forms or identify themselves as someone who has a firearm. We will also not be conducting random searches with dogs, as I have heard several other companies are planning to do. I really hope the legislature fixes the overzealous companies that are planning on neutering this law.

[SwimFan85]

If they have an illegal policy, I would ignore the policy and start looking for a better job.

[Dadiggla]

Im curious how this works. Let's just say you DO bring your gun in your vehicle, how will they ever know? Can they search your vehicle parked in an unsecured non fenced lot looking for a gun just for the hell of it?

[punkndisorderly]

To be honest, i'm not sure the law as I understand it really means much. If an employer learns you are bringing a firearm to work, and wants to fire you for it, they can with or without the law as long as they don't tell you that's why you're being fired.

I'm wondering if registering with the company might offer protection to the employee. If they decided to take actions against people on that list in a larger proportion than employees as a whole, wouldn't it be easier to argue they are violating the law?

Since you can be fired for any reason, as long as you aren't a protected class and are being fired because of it, what protection does the law offer?

[gwashorn]

Thanks all, it is a chemical plant but, the parking lot is unfenced and not secured. I think the company is in the wrong demanding the employees register. I still don't have pockets deep enough to be the test case.

As I have stated before, I'm the FSO for a chemical plant. As part of my role, I had to develop the policy for our facility to be in compliance with the new law. Being a CHL holder, I was obviously biased towards being as permissive as I could get away with. While developing our policy, we conference called with several other companies to get a feel for what the "industry standard" was going to be. It is suprising how many companies are planning on requiring "firearms declaration forms". From what I could gain from the companies that will be instituting this form, I HIGHLY recommend that you fill out the form if you plan on bringing a firearm on the premises. Many of them are looking for opportunities to discipline/fire folks for violating company policy. One company, that will not be mentioned by name, is even planning on making employees list the brand, model, and serial number of any firearms that you intend to bring onto the property. They have stated that any employee that brings on a firearm that has not been declared will face termination. They are getting away from this because they are not prohibiting the employee from bringing the firearm onto the property, they are "just setting company policies for those who chose to store a firearm in their vehicle". There is a host of other rules that many of them are putting on employees who utilize the new law.

I have warned some of these companies that I believe that they are skating dangerously close to imposing a defacto ban on firearms by making it so difficult to comply with the companies' rules that very few would be in compliance. They didn't really care. I hope that someone is successful in sueing some of these Orwellian companies.

Suffice it to say that our facility has approved a procedure that not only comlies with the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law. CHL holders will not have to fill out silly forms or identify themselves as someone who has a firearm. We will also not be conducting random searches with dogs, as I have heard several other companies are planning to do. I really hope the legislature fixes the overzealous companies that are planning on neutering this law.

Canvasbck, I would also note that it is illegal for anyone to collect a list of holders of a CHL if I understand the law correctly. So to me, IMHO, IANAL, etc, etc, those forms best not try to determine how a person is legal to have the firearm as the SB321 allows. If they are asking whether I am a CHL holder, I for one would file a law suit to make a point of them and send a warning to the rest. Don't mess with TEXAS... that means us.

[sjfcontrol]

Canvasbck, I would also note that it is illegal for anyone to collect a list of holders of a CHL if I understand the law correctly. So to me, IMHO, IANAL, etc, etc, those forms best not try to determine how a person is legal to have the firearm as the SB321 allows. If they are asking whether I am a CHL holder, I for one would file a law suit to make a point of them and send a warning to the rest. Don't mess with TEXAS... that means us.

Umm, not quite true. by law (GC 411.192), DPS does not release a mailing list (or other list) of CHL holders -- but as far as I know, there is nothing in the law preventing a private individual or company from collecting that information when "voluntarily" offered. (If you know differently, please point out the statute in question.)

[gwashorn]

Canvasbck, I would also note that it is illegal for anyone to collect a list of holders of a CHL if I understand the law correctly. So to me, IMHO, IANAL, etc, etc, those forms best not try to determine how a person is legal to have the firearm as the SB321 allows. If they are asking whether I am a CHL holder, I for one would file a law suit to make a point of them and send a warning to the rest. Don't mess with TEXAS... that means us.

Umm, not quite true. by law (GC 411.192), DPS does not release a mailing list (or other list) of CHL holders -- but as far as I know, there is nothing in the law preventing a private individual or company from collecting that information when "voluntarily" offered. (If you know differently, please point out the statute in question.)

Yes, I have read this section too and I think this is a grey area, hence my comment defining "IF I UNDERSTAND THE LAW CORRECTLY". I am not "voluntarily" giving my status to be maintained by someone else. It has been a while since reading some threads about whether or not "other" groups can collect and maintain this information. The arguement made in the past was since it can not be given out by the state except to justice departments and I have to be notified that it was requested, then I assume if my employer collects it then they could give it out and not tell me. This may well get tested then as to who can collect and control a list of CHL holders. Imagine if you will, a group wants to know who has a license and they can not ask for it from the state, but they can collect it under the pretense of my employment depends on it if I tell my employer if I am licensed. Now who protects my rights? This is one of the points Canvasback was raising in treading close to the line of preventing our legal rights. If I am not mistaken under SB321 (correct me if wrong) the employer can not provide parking that separates or denotes us as CHL or MPA holders in a lot that then identifies us. I agree the GC411.192 covers how they (the State) do it. I am not pointing out they can not do it except as interpreted under GC411.192. Employers can do what they want, it is up to us to hold them to the law, and that is my point.