Parking Lot law

[Weg]

Is it correct that the parking lot law only applies to those with a CHL. I always thought it applied to anyone, but after reading it it appears to only apply to those with a CHL? Am I missing something?

SUBCHAPTER G. RESTRICTIONS ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF CERTAIN FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION

Sec. 52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

[3dfxMM]

Is it correct that the parking lot law only applies to those with a CHL. I always thought it applied to anyone, but after reading it it appears to only apply to those with a CHL? Am I missing something?

SUBCHAPTER G. RESTRICTIONS ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF CERTAIN FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION

Sec. 52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

It's a list of three criteria, any one of which qualifies the individual.

[JerryK]

It's a list of three criteria, any one of which qualifies the individual.

I do not read it the same way. It is speaking exclusively to/about (CHL holders), that "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or who lawfully possesses ammunition " I see it as a statement about CHL holders with an either/or qualifier.

[ScottDLS]

It's a list of three criteria, any one of which qualifies the individual.

I do not read it the same way. It is speaking exclusively to/about (CHL holders), that "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or who lawfully possesses ammunition " I see it as a statement about CHL holders with an either/or qualifier.

It's a list:


A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee 1)who holds a license to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, 2) who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, 3) or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

The key words are FIREARM and AMMUNITION, neither of which require a LTC if the gun is not a handgun.

[GlassG19]

It's a list of three criteria, any one of which qualifies the individual.

I do not read it the same way. It is speaking exclusively to/about (CHL holders), that "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or who lawfully possesses ammunition " I see it as a statement about CHL holders with an either/or qualifier.

It's a list:


A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee 1)who holds a license to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, 2) who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, 3) or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

The key words are FIREARM and AMMUNITION, neither of which require a LTC if the gun is not a handgun.

He's Right.

[baldeagle]

The key is the word "or". When you say something like you may chose a, b or c, it means you get one of the three choices. By the same token, if you say you may attend the game if you have a ticket, you have a personal invite from the owner or you arrive after the game starts, any one of the three options means you get to go to the game.

[dhoobler]

AG opinion GA-0972, which I linked to in another thread, implies that the protection is limited to thos persons with a CHL.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... ga0972.htm

[Papa_Tiger]

AG opinion GA-0972, which I linked to in another thread, implies that the protection is limited to thos persons with a CHL.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... ga0972.htm

You have to look at the question that was being asked, specifically

"[C]an an employer still ban the transport and storage of handguns in locked private vehicles by employees with [c]oncealed [h]andgun [l]icenses in employee parking areas by posting notice authorized by [subsection 30.06(c)(3)(B) of the Penal Code]? In other words, would firearms be considered 'prohibited by state law' in this circumstance?"

The opinion was specifically asking if people with CHLs could be banned from having a gun in their vehicle in a parking lot by posting of 30.06 signs.

The answer given was, in short, "NO".

An employer subject to section 52.061 of the Labor Code may not ban the transport and storage of handguns in locked private vehicles by employees with concealed handgun licenses in employee parking areas by posting the notice authorized by section 30.06 of the Penal Code.

[dhoobler]

AG opinion GA-0972, which I linked to in another thread, implies that the protection is limited to thos persons with a CHL.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... ga0972.htm

You have to look at the question that was being asked, specifically

"[C]an an employer still ban the transport and storage of handguns in locked private vehicles by employees with [c]oncealed [h]andgun [l]icenses in employee parking areas by posting notice authorized by [subsection 30.06(c)(3)(B) of the Penal Code]? In other words, would firearms be considered 'prohibited by state law' in this circumstance?"

The opinion was specifically asking if people with CHLs could be banned from having a gun in their vehicle in a parking lot by posting of 30.06 signs.

The answer given was, in short, "NO".

An employer subject to section 52.061 of the Labor Code may not ban the transport and storage of handguns in locked private vehicles by employees with concealed handgun licenses in employee parking areas by posting the notice authorized by section 30.06 of the Penal Code.

I think you are right. This spells it out a little more clearly.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/do ... /SB321.pdf

[dhoobler]

[Pre-paid legal service] on sb321:
~
Unfortunately, the Texas Legislature did not write a bill which was or is clear, straightforward or enforceable.

In addition, the Texas Employer Parking Lot law is unclear in that it contains contradictory language which allows it to be logically interpreted as applying only to CHL holders, instead of to all lawful gun owners.
Many employers have adopted this
~
http://txccia.org/[pre-paid legal]%20-%20SB%20321.html

[thetexan]

Let's take the rule in reverse.

Do we conclude that this rule which explicitly prohibits an employer from prohibiting a license holder from possessing a firearm in a locked, privately owned vehicle, in a parking lot provided to the employee by the employer, implicitly grants the authority to do so to non License holders?

If it does not grant the authority outright does it prohibit the action? No. It does not prohibit the employer from stopping the non-License holder. Notice I didn't conclude that the employer MAY prohibit a non license holder but rather the rule does not prohibit the action.

The question becomes is there any other rule that would grant the non-license holder protection from a prohibiting employer? For example 46.02?

46.02 gives non-license holders authority to carry in their personal vehicles where?...In all locations not otherwise prohibited by law. But read it carefully. 46.02 is not an authority to do something but rather a prohibition against something. That being the unconcealed carriage of a handgun somewhere other than your vehicle, watercraft or residence.

In both cases the lack of prohibition is generally taken to mean authority to do the thing. That form of interpretation is good for the goose as well as the gander.

If we take it to mean the employer has the authority to prohibit the non-license holder, then it comes in direct conflict with the authority given in 46.02.

If we take the other method of interpretation then we can conclude 52.061 bestows no authority (nor prohibits a prohibition) and 46.02 also bestows no authority but only stipulates what can't be done.

If that is so then the employer may restrict non-license holders and non-license holders may carry in their vehicle. Again a conflict. And a conflict I believe the employer wins if the parking provided is his property.

What is left is the employer's rights as a property owner to restrict a non-license holder from his privately owned property. In this case what is the mechanism for NOTIFYING a non-license holder that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited? I believe this comes under the simple trespass notification in 30.05.

If the parking provided is public parking (possibly assigned to the establishment as at a mall) then I believe 46.02 wins.

tex