Parking Lot bill passed?

[crabbys44]

I just got this email from the Legislature.

SB 321
Relating to an employee's transportation and storage of certain firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or controlled by the employee's employer.
5/4/2011 H Passed as amended
work search
View all actions

"Passed as amended" sounds good but I can't look up any information from work.

 

[Texas42]

I heard on the radio that it was being sent to Gov. Perry's desk.

 

[CAL]

Yep, passed the House today. Gov Perry has 10 days to veto (which he won't) before it becomes law, effective Sept. 1st.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Charlie]

Thanks for the update Cal and..............welcome to the forum!

 

[MR Redneck]

It's on it's way to the governors desk.
" It's only good if you have a CHL", or just dont give a ****.
First, due to the amendments, the Senate must adopt the bill or address the amendments in a conference committee. " No big deal if they dont want to kill it".

 

[DrBart2]

Yea! Now if we can get open carry too!

 

[CAL]

It's on it's way to the governors desk.
" It's only good if you have a CHL", or just dont give a ****.
First, due to the amendments, the Senate must adopt the bill or address the amendments in a conference committee. " No big deal if they dont want to kill it".

Maybe I misunderstood what your post meant but you don't need a CHL.

The amendments should zip through the Senate as 2 out of 3 are primarily "housekeeping" in nature. I don't think the Senate will have heartburn with the other.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Bithabus]

Maybe I misunderstood what your post meant but you don't need a CHL.

82R13304 KSD-F By: Hegar, Birdwell, et al. S.B. No. 321 (Kleinschmidt) Substitute the following for S.B. No. 321: No.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to an employee's transportation and storage of certain firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or controlled by the employee's employer. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Chapter 52, Labor Code, is amended by adding Subchapter G to read as follows: SUBCHAPTER G.RESTRICTIONS ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF CERTAIN FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION Sec.52.061.RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. 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. Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not: (1)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, or who lawfully possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is prohibited by state or federal law; or (2) apply to: (A)a vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee's duties; (B) a school district; (C)an open-enrollment charter school, as defined by Section 5.001, Education Code; (D)a private school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code; (E)property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease executed before September 1, 2011, that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or (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 the handgun 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. (b)Section 52.061 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, from possessing a firearm the employee is otherwise authorized by law to possess on the premises of the employer's business. In this subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code. Sec.52.063.IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY. Except in cases of gross negligence, a public or private employer or the employer's agent is not liable in a civil action for personal injury, death, property damage, or any other damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored in accordance with Section 52.061, including an action for damages arising from the theft of the firearm or ammunition or the use of the firearm or ammunition by a person other than the employee authorized by Section 52.061 to transport or store the firearm or ammunition. The presence of a firearm or ammunition transported or stored in the manner and in a location described by Section 52.061 does not by itself constitute a failure by the employer to provide a safe workplace. SECTION 2. Section 411.203, Government Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business. In this section, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code. SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. A cause of action that accrues before that date is governed by the law as it existed immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose. SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

 

[CAL]

Read directly after your bolded section (that's a comma not a period). In addition to CHL holders it says "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm"...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Bithabus]

Read directly after your bolded section (that's a comma not a period). In addition to CHL holders it says "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm"...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Doesn't say "or who otherwise possesses a firearm". I read it as "has a CHL and legally possesses a firearm". You could be correct.

 

[Fred B.]

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.

 

[MR Redneck]

Maybe I misunderstood what your post meant but you don't need a CHL.

The amendments should zip through the Senate as 2 out of 3 are primarily "housekeeping" in nature. I don't think the Senate will have heartburn with the other.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

You do if you dont want to get fired. " Just to be clear, I think it BS myself".
You can conceal inside you vehicle with out a license,nobody can do shit. But if you get caught at work they can fire you without a CHL.
So, until somebody takes this issue to court and clears it up, you have to have a CHL or they will fire you.
The wording can be determined two different way.

 

[mdehoogh]

The way I read it is like a list, you don't have to add and or or between every item, just before the last item. ex; grapes, apples, bananas, or oranges. A comma between items with the conjunction immediately before the last item.

who holds a license, who otherwise lawfully posses, or who lawfully posses ammunition...


They should have written it like this;

A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee:
(1) who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
(2) who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm; or
(3) who lawfully possesses ammunition

Besides, if one has a CHL, it's inherent that they can lawfully posses guns. They wouldn't need to add that 'otherwise' unless they intended for those without a CHL but still lawfully possessing to be included with the bill.

I do agree that it's quite vague and needs to be cleared up

 

[MR Redneck]

I agree. Make it perfectly clear.

 

[CAL]

The way I read it is like a list, you don't have to add and or or between every item, just before the last item. ex; grapes, apples, bananas, or oranges. A comma between items with the conjunction immediately before the last item.

who holds a license, who otherwise lawfully posses, or who lawfully posses ammunition...


They should have written it like this;
Besides, if one has a CHL, it's inherent that they can lawfully posses guns. They wouldn't need to add that 'otherwise' unless they intended for those without a CHL but still lawfully possessing to be included with the bill.

I do agree that it's quite vague and needs to be cleared up

Ding, ding, ding. Winner.

You do if you dont want to get fired. " Just to be clear, I think it BS myself".
You can conceal inside you vehicle with out a license,nobody can do shit. But if you get caught at work they can fire you without a CHL.
So, until somebody takes this issue to court and clears it up, you have to have a CHL or they will fire you.

Not true. The commas separate the conditions. By your logic a peace officer could not carry their weapon but a CHL holder could.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Jecsd1]

It would be nice if it protected folks like civilians working on military bases, teachers and petroleum industry workers. But hey, it's a start

 

[MR Redneck]

Ding, ding, ding. Winner.



Not true. The commas separate the conditions. By your logic a peace officer could not carry their weapon but a CHL holder could.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

A police officer will carry his weapon all the time. While on duty, no signs mean crap to a Law man. Im not positive about when their off duty though.
Besides, I promise you, someone will get fired and have to take this to court. " You wont be able to call the cops saying they cant fire me, make em stop". It's a civil matter, the cops cant help.
Im glad it passed, and I hope it becomes clear to assholes that they cant fire a person because they have a gun in their vehicle.

 

[MR Redneck]

It would be nice if it protected folks like civilians working on military bases, teachers and petroleum industry workers. But hey, it's a start

Man I hear ya. I had my truck searched 3 time in one day at a refinery.
Im not sure if a refinery falls under company policy or if its actually against the law.

 

[CAL]

A police officer will carry his weapon all the time. While on duty, no signs mean crap to a Law man. Im not positive about when their off duty though.
Besides, I promise you, someone will get fired and have to take this to court. "

My scenario was one of a police officer working a second job. He can carry if he wants, wherever be wants without issue criminally. However, this is a different matter and unless a law provides protection (like this bill), an employer can set policy to restrict whatever they want under penalty of termination.

Secondly, there are plenty of other statutes written similarly also. The courts recognize sentence structure.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[MR Redneck]

My scenario was one of a police officer working a second job. He can carry if he wants, wherever be wants without issue criminally. However, this is a different matter and unless a law provides protection (like this bill), an employer can set policy to restrict whatever they want under penalty of termination.

Secondly, there are plenty of other statutes written similarly also. The courts recognize sentence structure.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I hope it falls into law without any issue, I really do. Im just looking at the way it reads and considering my experiance with the way laws are written.
None of this means anything to me until we also have case law to look at.
I hope its good enough that we never have to get any case laws against the bill, but??????