TexasCHLforum.com

It is commonly stated that MPA was an extension of the castle docterine, although I do not believe that is the case anywhere in the Codes.

IANAL but I don't think that the parking lot law was an extension of MPA. For petrochemical facilities and refineries, employees must have a CHL to store firearms in their vehicle outside of the secure area of the facility. Carrying under MPA is not sufficient for bringing a firearm into the parking lot of a petrochemical/refining facility under the parking lot law.

The property rights of the facility owner also supercede the ability for non-employees to carry, such as contractors, ect. They are NOT protected by the parking lot law.

jmra wrote:

tbrown wrote:

Keith B wrote:

smoothoperator wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another.

Isn't that what the parking lot law did?

[ Image ]

Nope. The parking lot law kept the employer from restricting me from keeping my gun in MY property (my vehicle).

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.

While it is apples and oranges, I like that line of thinking