Venture Surplus ad

Gun in car at worksite

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    Federal facilities actually owned or leased by the federal government allow firearms in the parking lot (at least it's not a federal crime to have them).
    Really? That's not my experience but since I've never been arrested by the Federal Protective Service I can't say for sure that my experience is anything to learn from.
    Guns International
     

    ScottDLS

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 7, 2020
    539
    76
    Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
    Really? That's not my experience but since I've never been arrested by the Federal Protective Service I can't say for sure that my experience is anything to learn from.

    I have worked in FPS protected facilities in multiple states (including Texas) and DC. There is typically screening before entering the building, but not the parking lots which are not off limits per 18 USC 930, with the exception of some Federal Courts where the presiding judge has ordered otherwise. In that case they are supposed to post. Post Offices claim to prohibit parking lots under the CFR, but violation is a federal infraction (like a speeding ticket in a national park). Military bases, Army COE Parks, and Federal monuments are off limits.
     
    Last edited:

    JGW006

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 17, 2021
    22
    11
    McKinney
    I’m a contractor working on a drilling rig in W. Texas. I drive 500 miles to the rig, live in a provided trailer on site while working for 2 weeks before returning home for days off. Most oil companies & the company I consult for have no firearms rules. It’s my understanding that Texas law allows you to keep a firearm locked in your car at work. Some of the oil companies conduct random vehicle searches for drugs & firearms. Am I within my legal rights to keep my firearm locked out of sight in my car on location & what recourse do I have if I lose my contract if the firearm is discovered. I am a LTC holder. I don’t intend to drive that far, often at night, especially with what is going on at the border.
    Completely legal to travel with a firearm in your car. It’s also completely legal for your employer to have a “no Guns” policy, and it can conduct random searches if that is its policy (company sites, or sites it contracts to be, not just anywhere). You have no legal recourse.

    JGW
     

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,735
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    Completely legal to travel with a firearm in your car. It’s also completely legal for your employer to have a “no Guns” policy, and it can conduct random searches if that is its policy (company sites, or sites it contracts to be, not just anywhere). You have no legal recourse.

    JGW

    Welcome to the Forum!
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Completely legal to travel with a firearm in your car. It’s also completely legal for your employer to have a “no Guns” policy, and it can conduct random searches if that is its policy (company sites, or sites it contracts to be, not just anywhere). You have no legal recourse.

    JGW

    Welcome to TGT. Stop over in the Intro Section and say hello to everyone.
     

    leVieux

    TSRA/NRA Life Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Completely legal to travel with a firearm in your car. It’s also completely legal for your employer to have a “no Guns” policy, and it can conduct random searches if that is its policy (company sites, or sites it contracts to be, not just anywhere). You have no legal recourse.

    JGW


    I'd bet that many of the members here, or TSRA members, would gladly hold a weapon for someone in your position, as long as no liability was established. Also, the local Sheriff at your destination may do the same; it wouldn't hurt to ask.

    Meanwhile, Texas has a big problem when codified law can deprive a person of their BASIC Constitutional RIGHTS in deference to a third-party's "property rights." Especially when that Constitutional RIGHT is pursued under a (superfluous) license from the State.

    We need LAWS protecting us from any and all forms of "legalized" forced disarmament.

    leVieux
    .
     

    JGW006

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 17, 2021
    22
    11
    McKinney
    I'd bet that many of the members here, or TSRA members, would gladly hold a weapon for someone in your position, as long as no liability was established. Also, the local Sheriff at your destination may do the same; it wouldn't hurt to ask.

    Meanwhile, Texas has a big problem when codified law can deprive a person of their BASIC Constitutional RIGHTS in deference to a third-party's "property rights." Especially when that Constitutional RIGHT is pursued under a (superfluous) license from the State.

    We need LAWS protecting us from any and all forms of "legalized" forced disarmament.

    leVieux
    .
    I don’t have a constitutional right to enter your home without your consent. I don’t have a constitutional right to work for _____ [fill in the blank]. Similarly, I don’t have the constitutional right to make you work for me (a war was fought of that back in the 1800s). Further, the constitution and its protections are protections against the government, not private individuals and companies.

    You may not like to not be “free” to carry where ever you choose, but you are free to not work there, patronize that employer or store, etc.

    JGW
     
    Last edited:

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    I'd bet that many of the members here, or TSRA members, would gladly hold a weapon for someone in your position, as long as no liability was established. Also, the local Sheriff at your destination may do the same; it wouldn't hurt to ask.

    Meanwhile, Texas has a big problem when codified law can deprive a person of their BASIC Constitutional RIGHTS in deference to a third-party's "property rights." Especially when that Constitutional RIGHT is pursued under a (superfluous) license from the State.

    We need LAWS protecting us from any and all forms of "legalized" forced disarmament.

    leVieux
    .

    You seem to have a huge problem with property owners having the right to set their own rules and prohibitions on their own property. Bad position to take.
     

    ScottDLS

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 7, 2020
    539
    76
    Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
    You seem to have a huge problem with property owners having the right to set their own rules and prohibitions on their own property. Bad position to take.

    I think a better argument would be for the State to avoid criminalizing conduct related to a private business or individuals "rules". Texas has already done this with the employee parking lot law. Private employers are not supposed to fire employees for keeping a gun in their car. And the employee is not breaking any laws by doing so that the employer could use to have the employee charged. There are also special classes of people that are exempt from publicly accessible business "rules" regarding carrying handguns. They are police officers, special agents (feds), and even Volunteer Emergency Response Personnel. These people are not liable for 30.06/7 violations. In the case of peace officers, if a publicly accessible business throws them out for carrying, they are liable for a $1000 fine. So much for the grand tradition of Texas property rights.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    I think a better argument would be for the State to avoid criminalizing conduct related to a private business or individuals "rules". Texas has already done this with the employee parking lot law. Private employers are not supposed to fire employees for keeping a gun in their car. And the employee is not breaking any laws by doing so that the employer could use to have the employee charged. There are also special classes of people that are exempt from publicly accessible business "rules" regarding carrying handguns. They are police officers, special agents (feds), and even Volunteer Emergency Response Personnel. These people are not liable for 30.06/7 violations. In the case of peace officers, if a publicly accessible business throws them out for carrying, they are liable for a $1000 fine. So much for the grand tradition of Texas property rights.

    Why not just do away with all trespassing laws then? If we are going down that road, then why even allow a property owner to have any rights to decide what they can or can't do within their own property.

    And trying to group LE officers within that argument, is like comparing apples to oranges.
     

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    But why should the property owner’s rights be amplified by requiring the visitor to ”self police” the property owner’s whims?

    What if the PO said no one is allowed who is ”going commando”? Or, no one is allowed who has a lewd tattoo on his/her butt?

    That goes way beyond no shirt, no shoes, no service!”
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    But why should the property owner’s rights be amplified by requiring the visitor to ”self police” the property owner’s whims?

    What if the PO said no one is allowed who is ”going commando”? Or, no one is allowed who has a lewd tattoo on his/her butt?

    That goes way beyond no shirt, no shoes, no service!”

    Simply put, I'll side with the rights of the property owner, over a gun owner's rights to carry on private property.

    If I so choose to not allow someone to carry on my property, regardless of whether that property is open to the general public or not, that should be my right, and the state of Texas recognizes and will enforce the rights of the property owner.
     

    Big Dipper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    2,940
    96
    ATX & FC, WI
    Simply put, I'll side with the rights of the property owner, over a gun owner's rights to carry on private property.

    If I so choose to not allow someone to carry on my property, regardless of whether that property is open to the general public or not, that should be my right, and the state of Texas recognizes and will enforce the rights of the property owner.

    Actually the State of Texas has already recognized that the right to possess a firearm trumps some PO rights — https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._prop._code_section_94.257
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Actually the State of Texas has already recognized that the right to possess a firearm trumps some PO rights — https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._prop._code_section_94.257

    That is in regards to tenant and landlord rights. IOW' a landlord can't infringe upon a tenant is exercising their legal rights to possess a firearm.

    When you enter into a rental contract, or lease, in all legal sense, you as the leasee, are in control of that property. You may not own it, but you control it.
     

    leVieux

    TSRA/NRA Life Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    I don’t have a constitutional right to enter your home without your consent. I don’t have a constitutional right to work for _____ [fill in the blank]. Similarly, I don’t have the constitutional right to make you work for me (a war was fought of that back in the 1800s). Further, the constitution and its protections are protections against the government, not private individuals and companies.

    You may not like to not be “free” to carry where ever you choose, but you are free to not work there, patronize that employer or store, etc.

    JGW

    >
    But, there is a gigantic problem with your "over-simplification". In the instance under discussion, that leaves our traveling worker to make a 1000 mile round-trip unarmed.

    The answer may be to have laws forcing those who wish to enforce "no guns" in a PRIVATE vehicle to provide secure lock-boxes at their entry sites, so that a CITIZEN could comply with their private property restriction and still not have his basic RIGHTS infringed.

    And, what about "third-party" property rights ? What about the citizen's RIGHTS INSIDE of his PRIVATE locked, secured vehicle ?

    Lastly, Lawyers are not DICTATORS, no matter what is said !

    leVieux
    .
     

    JGW006

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 17, 2021
    22
    11
    McKinney
    >
    But, there is a gigantic problem with your "over-simplification". In the instance under discussion, that leaves our traveling worker to make a 1000 mile round-trip unarmed.

    The answer may be to have laws forcing those who wish to enforce "no guns" in a PRIVATE vehicle to provide secure lock-boxes at their entry sites, so that a CITIZEN could comply with their private property restriction and still not have his basic RIGHTS infringed.

    And, what about "third-party" property rights ? What about the citizen's RIGHTS INSIDE of his PRIVATE locked, secured vehicle ?

    Lastly, Lawyers are not DICTATORS, no matter what is said !

    leVieux
    .

    We will have to respectfully agree to disagree. There is not a "1,000" mile exception to a private person, entity, company, etc.'s rights to determine what occurs on his / it's property. Or would it be a "500" mile exception? "100" miles? "5 miles"? 5 blocks? If you don't like lawyers now, think of the field day they would have on those things.

    Also, why should a private individual, company, etc. be forced to spend resources to provide a lock box on their own property? And now get insurance on same so that private company / individual / entity / etc., when there is a fire, a theft, a shooting, etc., has liability exposure? (or, are you going to give the company / person a free pass if your gun is stolen or damaged?) Now we are going to make the insurance companies even more wealthy.

    Simply put, my freedoms don't depend on your freedoms, or vice versa. You can probably tell I am primarily a libertarian in my world view. "Don't infringe on my rights, I won't infringe on your rights; don't tell me what I can do or am required to do or not do, and I won't tell you what you can do or are required to do or not do; your rights end where my rights begin, and vice versa."

    Your rights inside your private, locked, vehicle are not impacted by the OP or subsequent comments. The government is not telling you that you can't have a gun in your locked car. Your private employer, place of business, place where you choose to shop or go, etc., is making a decision for itself / his self. You are free to not work for them, patronize them, etc. That is your right.

    There are places (Starbucks) which I will not go to nor buy from because of their stance on these issues. That is my right. It is your right to go there or not go there. It is their right to have the policy they want.

    Do you really want a society in which you get to determine what someone else's rights are on that person's property or in his store or work place? You clearly don't want that as your position here is that the private company or person shouldn't get to tell you what you can do on his / its property. Your argument is internally inconsistent.

    Just my $.02. I may be wrong. Been wrong before and I'm sure I'll be wrong again.

    JGW
     
    Top Bottom