30.06 At entrance to work parking lot

[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".

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.

Well, don't keep it a secret.

[jmra]

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.

Well, don't keep it a secret.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... ga1051.pdf

[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.

Well, don't keep it a secret.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... ga1051.pdf

I don't see anything about the MPA in the opinions.

[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".

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.

Well, don't keep it a secret.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... ga1051.pdf

You referring to this quote?

When a person is authorized by other law to carry a handgun or other
firearm, the person is not carrying the weapon "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code

[timdsmith72]

I got this letter back from our Legal department. Seems to be very much in line with what Keith was thinking.

{Removed} forwarded your concern about the posting of the 30.06 signage at the entrances to our Southwest Airlines Campus. It’s important to understand that from a Company perspective, we have to take a broad approach.



We do this by posting official notification in the form of the 30.06 notice restricting firearms on our property, which in theory, supports our ability to enforce the existing Company policy of no “unauthorized” possession of firearms. The intent of posting the Texas Penal Code “§30.06 Trespass by Holder of License to Carry Concealed Handgun,” is that the sign simply gives the Company recourse to pursue a charge of criminal trespass in the event a person is found to be in possession of a concealed weapon who is otherwise not in compliance with the law. In conflict with 30.06, is SB 321, also known as the parking lot law.

SB 321, which went into effect September 2011, only prohibits employers from prohibiting employees from storing lawfully concealed weapons/ammunition in locked vehicles in worksite parking areas. An employer can continue to prohibit employees from possessing a firearm on the "premises" of the employer's business, which we do by the external door signage, in addition to the stated company policy. The term "premises" is defined by Section 46.035(f)(3) of the Texas Penal Code as a building or portion of a building. "Premises" does not include a driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

The stated purpose of SB 321 was to protect Texas gun owners (CHL holders and non-CHL holders ref HB 1815), and prevent employers from prohibiting employees from keeping firearms in their locked vehicle, with a few exceptions. As a company, we make it clear that we recognize this legislation by the first word in our policy (Unauthorized), in addition to a clear statement acknowledging the storage of lawfully possessed weapons in the states who have adopted 321 where we have physical property. “Unauthorized possession of….. In those limited jurisdictions that allow storage of lawfully possessed weapons in locked vehicles in worksite parking areas outside airport secure areas, applicable state law will apply (for example Indiana, Oklahoma and Texas, among others).” Finally, for those carrying under HB 1815, SB 321 covers non-CHL holders

The location of the signs represents the primary initial entry point for each facility. CHL legislation contains contradictory language because of the many nuances of the law. As long as employees/visitors, etc., remain aware of the law and its intent in addition to stated company policy they should not encounter a problem. Hope this helps.

[Keith B]

That is a good letter back from legal. So in essence they just posted them at the common entry points. And, that covers all of the premises for 30.06, which includes OUT of your car in the parking lot or on the grounds or in buildings, but in your car is acknowledged as legal.

[timdsmith72]

Yes. I'm very happy with this response.

[jimlongley]

That is a good letter back from legal. So in essence they just posted them at the common entry points. And, that covers all of the premises for 30.06, which includes OUT of your car in the parking lot or on the grounds or in buildings, but in your car is acknowledged as legal.

I'm glad you understand it that way, Keith, but I have reservations.

"The location of the signs represents the primary initial entry point for each facility. CHL legislation contains contradictory language because of the many nuances of the law. As long as employees/visitors, etc., remain aware of the law and its intent in addition to stated company policy they should not encounter a problem. Hope this helps."

Besides their statement that the "CHL legislation contains contradictory language . . ." without actually citing those contradictions, the one thing that bothers me the most is "they should not encounter a problem" which means to me that there is a chance that they will encounter a problem.

They also seem to think that a 30.06 posting restricts firearms on their property rather than just CHLs carrying under the statute. Made worse by the next sentence that the sign gives them recourse in the event that they catch a non CHL on the property.

The next two paragraphs explain the law, somewhat redundantly, and inserts "Unauthorized" into the mix, but 30.06 is not about "Unauthorized" it is about authorized being prohibited, and in the last paragraph they explain that the sign is in the most publicly conspicuous place for posting without acknowledging that the location of the sign makes it effective for the entire property, not just the premises, thus actually settling nothing.

It reads like "Doublethink" to me, expressed in print.

"should not encounter"

"should"

[RogueUSMC]

The intent of posting the Texas Penal Code “§30.06 Trespass by Holder of License to Carry Concealed Handgun,” is that the sign simply gives the Company recourse to pursue a charge of criminal trespass in the event a person is found to be in possession of a concealed weapon who is otherwise not in compliance with the law.

They still don't get it though...lol...“§30.06 Trespass by Holder of License to Carry Concealed Handgun,” is completely irrelevant in the event a person is found to be in possession of a concealed weapon who is otherwise not in compliance with the law. (using their words)

[FrogFan]

The only place they have the sign is at that "Employee Only" entrance. No sign at the visitor entrance.

Is the building itself posted? If not, and if visitors can park their cars without seeing the sign posted at the entrance to the employee lot, then a visitor with a CHL could carry on the premises while an employee -- even one with a CHL -- could not. That seems interesting to me.

[timdsmith72]

The building itself has just a "Gun Buster" sign.