Search found 1 match

by The Annoyed Man
Sat May 07, 2011 12:07 pm
Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Question about "Parking Lot Bill"
Replies: 27
Views: 13240

Re: Question about "Parking Lot Bill"

G.A. Heath wrote:You have multiple classes of property in reality, in this case we will consider three: Private Property, Public Property, Commercial Property (Privately owned, publicly accessible). All property is subject to some regulation, zoning laws are one good example, while public property is perhaps the most regulated seeing as how it is government controlled. Private property is not subject to much regulation, and is often considered by the public to be unregulated. Finally the commercial property is a hybrid of private and public property and is subject to quite a bit of regulation. Commercial property owners can't bar customers based on race, they have to ensure that their buildings and parking lots have sufficient access for disabled customers, They can not force employees to vote for one candidate over another, and so on. The Parking lot legislation is actually a minor regulation that does not cost employers anything to implement and helps protect the rights of the employees. I'm afraid that this is the best explanation I can come up with at nearly 2am. maybe when I am more awake I can come up with something better.
This is the best explanation yet for why I support the Parking Lot Bill.

I am a property owner myself, and I appreciate private property rights as much as anyone else. But I have pointed out zoning requirements and mandated handicapped access for commercial property before as reason for why the Parking Lot Bill is not really a huge infringement on the rights of commercial property owners. And even though Texas is an "at will" state with regard to employment, without the parking lot legislation, employers currently enjoy a situation in which they are permitted to reach outside the the boundaries of their publicly accessible commercial property in order to infringe upon the free exercise of an employee's constitutional rights when they are off the clock. Since when is an employee required to surrender control over their constitutionally protected off the job activities to their employer as a condition of employment? We are not yet an oligarchy. The Parking Lot Bill satisfies both A) the need of the employer to control the carrying of firearms onto their commercial property by requiring lawfully armed employees to secure their weapons in their cars prior to entering the "premises"; and B) the need of individual citizens to be armed with a handgun according to their choice when they are off the clock and between their jobs and their homes.
Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (f) 3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
Now, this applies to CHLs only, but the principle ought to mean the same for MPA.... someone correct me if I'm wrong.... and it seems to me that all a parking lot bill does is to extend the protections of 46.035 (f) 3) to employer parking lots for employees to choose to travel in their vehicles with a firearm.

Return to “Question about "Parking Lot Bill"”