"employee parking lot carry" bill has been filed

[Bithabus]

By: Hegar, Birdwell
S.B. No. 321



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; or

(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.

(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.

 

[matefrio]

Texas Legislature Online - 82(R) History for SB 321 <-Link

 

[Texasjack]

Same thing was submitted last session, but stalled out. Let's see if we can encourage our representatives to push this through.

 

[Wolfwood]

i was under the impression that you were within your rights to carry with/without a license if you are both on the job and the sole employee on a property...

 

[Bithabus]

i was under the impression that you were within your rights to carry with/without a license if you are both on the job and the sole employee on a property...

If in that case the property is "under your control", then sure.

But this isn't a legal carry issue, this is an employer rights issue. The bill would restrict the ability of employers to fire employees when employees violate certain policy, in this case policy forbidding guns on employer property (or really, in your car in the lot).

Also employers would still be able to use policy to prohibit carry on the premises, even when that carry would be legal.

 

[lalonguecarabine]

Sounds good so far (short of allowing open carry, that is). What do we need to do, if anything to help this go through?

 

[Wolfwood]

oh ok cool.

so i am still ok.

the management likes having me around.

 

[Texan2]

oh ok cool.

so i am still ok.

the management likes having me around.

Whether you are by yourself or not I would check to see what your company policy is. If it is against policy for employees to carry, it wouldnt matter whether you were there by yourself or not. They could still dump you.

 

[MR Redneck]

I would much rather see a bill that truely considered your vehicle as an extension of your home, such as in Louisiana.
I dont like bill's that violate the right's of private property owners!
A bill to consider your vehicle as an extension of your home would accomplish the same thing but without infringeing on private property owners rights.
As an extension of your home, it would be illegal for your vehicle to be searched without probable cause by law enforcement. What is legal in your home, will be legal in your vehicle.
Texas already has a weak version of this law, so why not make it better for everyone.

 

[Texan2]

United States Supreme Court has already established that a vehicle has different standards for a search than a home, regardless of Louisiana's state law. Most of this is due to the ease of moving a vehicle and destroying evidence before a warrant can be obtained. That having been said LE still needs PC to search your car. And #2... this bill has nothing to do with LE, but with employers and employees.

 

[MR Redneck]

United States Supreme Court has already established that a vehicle has different standards for a search than a home, regardless of Louisiana's state law. Most of this is due to the ease of moving a vehicle and destroying evidence before a warrant can be obtained. That having been said LE still needs PC to search your car. And #2... this bill has nothing to do with LE, but with employers and employees.

I understand that. I simply dont like the idea of telling private property owners what to do. I have a parking lot. I also couldnt give a crap less if people have guns in their car on my property.
What I dont like is the bill that will decide I have to allow such an action no matter if I like it or not.
Expanding peoples rights is always a good thing, but this bill expands and restricts at the same time.
Im not a Law Maker, so I respect people rights. If someone doesnt want me having guns on their property I simply comply. Besides, I dont have to be there anyhow!

 

[Renegade]

That bill is so poorly worded as to be useless.

 

[Bithabus]

That bill is so poorly worded as to be useless.

Let's hope it gets cleaned up.

 

[Texasjack]

I understand that. I simply dont like the idea of telling private property owners what to do. I have a parking lot. I also couldnt give a crap less if people have guns in their car on my property.
What I dont like is the bill that will decide I have to allow such an action no matter if I like it or not.
Expanding peoples rights is always a good thing, but this bill expands and restricts at the same time.
Im not a Law Maker, so I respect people rights. If someone doesnt want me having guns on their property I simply comply. Besides, I dont have to be there anyhow!

Well, I don't like my employer telling me that I can't possess a gun in my vehicle in a parking lot that is outside the controlled fence. I can't drive from work to a hunting lease because I could get fired. Inside the plant fence - where all access is controlled - that's fine. But let the open parking area be subject to the same rules as the rest of the state!

Not only that, Mr. Redneck, but plants I've worked at where this anti-gun rule has resulted in someone getting fired, it was a VERY selective process for searching vehicles. "Human Resources" (the spawn of Satan) can use the rule to selectively get rid of people who might be nearing their retirement vesting date or that they just don't like.

This isn't a law to take away individual rights; it's a law designed to insure that individual rights can't be infringed by corporate rules.

 

[MR Redneck]

Well, I don't like my employer telling me that I can't possess a gun in my vehicle in a parking lot that is outside the controlled fence. I can't drive from work to a hunting lease because I could get fired. Inside the plant fence - where all access is controlled - that's fine. But let the open parking area be subject to the same rules as the rest of the state!

Not only that, Mr. Redneck, but plants I've worked at where this anti-gun rule has resulted in someone getting fired, it was a VERY selective process for searching vehicles. "Human Resources" (the spawn of Satan) can use the rule to selectively get rid of people who might be nearing their retirement vesting date or that they just don't like.

This isn't a law to take away individual rights; it's a law designed to insure that individual rights can't be infringed by corporate rules.

Once again, I know all that and yea, I actually deal with the same crap. I go into plant and refineries all the time. Had my vehicle searched a few times as well. The only time I have ever allowed my vehicle to be searched was from a customer I chose to keep. BP, I told that bunch of No Bill Paying, king of the Stupid Moron tribe to kiss it!!
Once again, I dont like laws that restrict rights! This Bill will restrict the rights of private property owners.
A bill that will increase the rights of Texans such and no unlawful search of a vehicle and considering your vehicle to be an extension of your home would be better for everyone.
To legally have firearms inside of your vehicle while on private property " Does Not Require a Law That Infringes On Property Owners Rights"!
Your vehicle is your property, if a bill was filed that truely recognized your vehicle as private property we would not need a bill that infringes on property owners rights!

 

[Texan2]

A bill that will increase the rights of Texans such and no unlawful search of a vehicle and considering your vehicle to be an extension of your home would be better for everyone.

Vehicles aren't unlawfully searched now. They could pass a bill that says you can put an address on your car door an call it a house and you would STILL have to submit to a vehicle search by companies that wish to search your car to go on their property. There is absolutely nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about that. Your position contradicts itself. You want propety owner rights, but you dont want those same property owners to have the right to search vehicles that go on their property. Which way do you want it?
The solution is to pass a bill like the one at hand. One that says you can carry in your car even when it is in an employee parking lot. Your vehicle isnt your house....and shouldnt be treated as such.

 

[Mic]

Am I reading it right to say that you have to have a CHL? As I understand it, one doesn't need a CHL to carry a firearm in their vehicle now, as long as it is concealed. So why should you have to have a CHL to keep the gun in the vehicle while at work.

 

[Bithabus]

Am I reading it right to say that you have to have a CHL? As I understand it, one doesn't need a CHL to carry a firearm in their vehicle now, as long as it is concealed. So why should you have to have a CHL to keep the gun in the vehicle while at work.

It is worded clumsily as Renegade pointed out. "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm" can mean several things, including having a gun in the car without a CHL.

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.

I agree CHL should have nothing to do with it, especially since having guns in your car has nothing to do with CHL. I don't know why it doesn't just say "A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who lawfully possesses firearms or ammunition to transport or store said firearms or ammunition in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."

 

[cuate]

Heres hoping the bill passes this time, with the political atmosphere considerably better in the Texas House and Senate than last year there is a much better chance of passage.

 

[haslethandgunner]

Get ourselves a conservative state speaker of the house, and you'll see more such bills.