TexasCHLforum.com

And once again, it's been proven why I should stay in the shallow end of the pool. Thanks for the further clarification, srothstein. It's possible that I read or heard that the MPA was had originated with the idea the the car should be treated as an extension of the home. But I'm now not so sure about my recollection.

Thanks for clarifying, canvasbck. I didn't mean to imply that the parking lot law was an extension of the MPA. But there is a relationship between the two, and that was what I was trying to demonstrate. I believe that the way that Texas laws are set-up, all of us usually transition from one part of the penal code to another within the same trip or outing. For example, I leave for work from my home armed under the so-called castle doctrine (walking from my front door down my driveway), once I get to the street to get into my car I'm armed under the provisions of my CHL, and then I'm driving to work under the MPA. The CHL takes over if I stop anywhere in between home and work. Once I pull into the parking lot at work the Parking Lot Law takes over (as my employer prohibits all weapons on the premises).

I have to admit that I'm not as well versed in the provisions for petro-chem facilities as I should be. Since I don't routinely go to those faclities, I haven't made as many mental notes concerning them. As such, I intentionally tried to be vague on that matter. Thanks again for the clarification there.

MasterOfNone wrote:

jmra wrote:

srothstein wrote:

jmra wrote:

tbrown wrote:Following the same logic, businesses should only be able to prohibit open carry. Why? Because if I'm carrying concealed, my gun is in my property (my clothes, my briefcase) and they have no right to restrict me from keeping my gun in MY property.

Apples and oranges.

I disagree. This can be seen as a question of what container I carry my gun in. Under the current law, if the container is my car, the property owner cannot ban me from carrying at work, but if the container is my briefcase, he can. I only see a difference in the size of the container.

Can you explain why you see some other difference that makes the positions so different?

Very simple to me. It's the same reason folks are allowed to carry in their car unlicensed under MPA, for most practical purposes your car is an extension of your home. Your briefcase is not.

Of course ultimately the law is the law and it doesn't really matter what you or I think should be or shouldn't be. What matters is what can and can not be passed legislatively.

But if a non-CHL (for simplicity) has a gun in his car under MPA and he drives it onto private property that is clearly posted that firearms are prohibited on the property, has he committed trespassing under 30.05?

As I understand it, the MPA treats your car as an extension of your home. With the parking lot law, the legislature said that an employer cannot revoke your property rights when you drive your car into their parking lot (unless the employer's business falls into one of the specific categories where a weapon in a vehicle can be prohibited). 30.06, however gives the employer control over their premises - that being defined as the actual building and specifically excluding parking lots & sidewalks.

The legislature is not likely to overturn the rights of property owners. To continue along those lines is pointless. For example, they're not likely to say that my right to free speech would allow me to come into your home whenever I like to preach Catholic doctrine & Christian to you regardless of your beliefs. Without 30.06, our ability to carry concealed would be even more restricted than it currently is. Open carry could cause more 30.06 signs to go up because concealed carry means out of sight, out of mind. Seeing openly carried weapons could bring the issue to the forefront.

joelamosobadiah wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.

So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.

Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.

Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.

I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another. Now removing the penalty for 30.06 or lessening it to simple trespass, that I can understand. In fact I think the state has already required business owners to go to great lengths to prevent concealed carry on their premises. That is necessary to ensure CHL were properly notified and understood the desire of the business owner.

But imposing government penalties against those property owners that want to choose what happens on their property (legally), that I think is a very slippery slope I'd rather the government stay out of.

This proposed security guard mandate seems eerily familiar to the federally mandated healthcare plan that dictates the type and scope of coverage that an employer will soon be compelled to provide for its employees. I don't think that's somewhere we really want to go as it would presumably invite more government participation into private enterprise. However, I do like the idea of reducing the 30.06 penalty to a simple trespass! That way 'concealed means concealed' could be meaningfully applied.