30.06 At entrance to work parking lot

[Keith B]

I was actually referring to the buildings. I was not clear.

I would definately agree there.

[redfeather crow]

If a hardware store can prohibit firearms in their parking lot, except for their employees, why can't a property management company prohibit firearms in their parking lots, except for their employees?

[WildBill]

I was actually referring to the buildings. I was not clear.

I would definately agree there.

Definitely.

[K.Mooneyham]

If a hardware store can prohibit firearms in their parking lot, except for their employees, why can't a property management company prohibit firearms in their parking lots, except for their employees?

Case law? Not saying that I personally want to be any sort of "test case". However, I see a lot of things stated but I'd really love to see some sort of documented case law to show how that has worked in real life. Not picking on you, this sort of thing has come up before on the forum.

[jbarn]

If a hardware store can prohibit firearms in their parking lot, except for their employees, why can't a property management company prohibit firearms in their parking lots, except for their employees?

They can prohibit hqndguns carried under a CHL under penal code 30.06. However, 30.06 only applies to handguns carried under a CHL. When I carry in my car, itnis not under a CHL. So 30.06 signs at parking lots mean nothing to me unless I step out of the car with the handgun. And if I own a shop in the business, or lease a space, I csn carry under penal code 46.02. 30.06 would not apply to me there.

[timdsmith72]

I did a little cruise around the parking lot this morning. The only place they have the sign is at that "Employee Only" entrance. No sign at the visitor entrance.

[Keith B]

I did a little cruise around the parking lot this morning. The only place they have the sign is at that "Employee Only" entrance. No sign at the visitor entrance.

They may be well aware that the parking lot is allowed to keep in vehicle, but stepping out on the parking lot with the gun would be a violation. It may also be a method of only having to post one or two signs and covering the whole facility by having it 'conspicuously displayed'.

[oohrah]

jbarn, point of order. I think you are taking a risky position to assume that MPA would trump CHL carry in the vehicle, especially if the handgun was "on, or about your person".

[Keith B]

jbarn, point of order. I think you are taking a risky position to assume that MPA would trump CHL carry in the vehicle, especially if the handgun was "on, or about your person".

I will jump in here. There has been discussion in the past that since you do not need a license to have a gun in your vehicle that MPA overrides CHL in that case.

Again, there is no case law on this particular setup, but it does fall in line with other general scenarios of licensed vs. unlicensed.

[jbarn]

jbarn, point of order. I think you are taking a risky position to assume that MPA would trump CHL carry in the vehicle, especially if the handgun was "on, or about your person".

I never said MPA trumps anything. Laws don't trump each other. When I carry in my car I am not carrying under the authority of a CHL. 46.02 of the penal code says I can car carry. 46.15 (b) states times when the prohibitions in 46.02 do not apply. CHL is under 46.15 (b)

I don't need 46.15 (b) to car carry.

[MeMelYup]

You need to send the sign information to Charles with a picture as he was looking for that kind of info a couple months ago.

[timdsmith72]

You need to send the sign information to Charles with a picture as he was looking for that kind of info a couple months ago.

Really? If this is true, I'll take a picture in the morning and send him some information.

[Jumping Frog]

jbarn, point of order. I think you are taking a risky position to assume that MPA would trump CHL carry in the vehicle, especially if the handgun was "on, or about your person".

There was a recent Greg Abbott AG letter regarding firearms on school property, where he made the precise point of noting what authority the firearm possession was covered by.

[nightmare69]

jbarn, point of order. I think you are taking a risky position to assume that MPA would trump CHL carry in the vehicle, especially if the handgun was "on, or about your person".

There was a recent Greg Abbott AG letter regarding firearms on school property, where he made the precise point of noting what authority the firearm possession was covered by.

Got that letter handy?

[WildBill]

jbarn, point of order. I think you are taking a risky position to assume that MPA would trump CHL carry in the vehicle, especially if the handgun was "on, or about your person".

There was a recent Greg Abbott AG letter regarding firearms on school property, where he made the precise point of noting what authority the firearm possession was covered by.

Got that letter handy?

You can search here: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opin/opindex.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... 1158GA.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;