TexasCHLforum.com

GEM-Texas wrote:Having read liability and crisis management literature aimed at universities, I would disagree respectfully as they are also truly concerned with liability.Thus I think your analysis holds for them. While on the surface the faculties are seen as not gun friendly, financial officers are more concerned with the bucks and wouldn't want to start a giant lawsuit.

....

Oh I agree that public universities and colleges are just as liability averse as anyone, but what I was really getting at is that their leaders will also oppose guns even more vigorously on ideological grounds. Even if you remove the liability threat, they will still oppose guns, whereas I think most corporations, while maybe not being thrilled, will ignore the issue once the liability concerns are addressed. Hence all the woe during the Campus Carry debate about "safe learning environment" and professors alleging they would refuse to teach if any student had a legal gun and all that. Armed citizens represent a lot of things the left/liberal mindset, dominant in the "education establishment," finds abhorrent, so having guns around harshes their karma regardless of the reality of the situation.

loadedliberal wrote:

steve817 wrote:My company changed our handbook just this year that says something to the effect of
Weapons are prohibited on company property unless allowed by local law. Guess they saw this one coming and decided to go with the flow.

To me it sounds like your handbook gives you the go ahead to carry at work provided you have your CHL.
IANAL

CHL is NOT necessary according to the following legal opinion.

* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Proof that SB321 is not limited to CHL's

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sun May 29, 2011 5:57 pm
The question as to whether SB321 (employer parking lots) applies only to CHL’s or to everyone who lawfully possesses a handgun is being discussed not only here on TexasCHLforum, but on at least one other gun board as well. Hopefully I can settle this issue once and for all by providing proof that SB321 does cover everyone, not just CHL’s.

As I have stated several times, the language of SB321 is absolutely clear and unequivocal. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say the bill is ambiguous on the issue of who is protected by this Bill. To answer the question, we look to the legislative history of SB321. The first two questions to ask when reviewing and evaluating the legislative history are 1) “was there an amendment addressing the issue in question[?]"; and 2) "was the issue in question discussed during floor debate?” The answer to both of these threshold questions is yes.

Rep. Harold Dutton (D - Houston) offered Amendment 6 that would have amended SB321 so that it would apply only to CHL’s. The Amendment attempted to do so by “striking lines 14 - 16, and substituting ‘from transporting or storing the firearm that the person is licensed to carry and ammunition for that firearm in a locked,’.” Lines 14 - 16 that Rep. Dutton wanted to delete read "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," Amendment 6 failed when Rep. Kleinschmidt’s motion to table it prevailed. The failed attempt to amend SB321 to narrow it to cover only CHL's is conclusive proof that the Bill is not limited to CHL's and any/every court in the state would so hold.

The hearing in which all of this occurred took place on May 3rd, during the afternoon session. Rep. Dutton first brought up the issue of SB321 applying only to CHL’s at 4:25:03 on the video. He makes it clear that, to his dismay, SB321 applied to everyone who lawfully possesses a firearm, not merely CHL’s. An hour and a half later, Rep. Dutton offered Amendment 6 and discussions on his amendment appear at 6:03:10 until 6:16:35 when his Amendment was tabled.

Here are links to the documents and video proving that SB321 applies to everyone who lawfully possesses firearms, not merely CHL’s.

House Committee Report on SB321 that was up for floor debate on May 3rd;

Rep. Dutton Amendment 6 that would have narrowed SB321 to apply only to CHL’s (Pg. 2730 in the Journal; Pg. 48 in the link)

Here is a link to the House Chamber Video. Select the May 3rd afternoon session (1:00pm - 10:38pm) and you will find the discussions I cited at the times set out: 4:25:03 to 4:25:30; and 6:03:10 to 6:16:55.

The bottom line is this; SB321 is not limited to CHL’s. Even if the language of SB321 was ambiguous, which it is not, the legislative history of this Bill is abundantly clear on this issue.

Chas.
Texas Firearm Coalition - Join Us and Get Involved!
Project One Million:Texas - NRA

The folks threatening not to teach were a fringe group. I asked around and no one I knew, esp. young profs, would give up a good tenure track position over this. Nor would older tenure types as getting another job unless you are a superstar is almost impossible nowadays.

Thus, that blather isn't the operative factor. The ideology is or was fun posturing. When push comes to shove, I'd bet they go for the bottom line of liability risk. If firing employees is more of a risk, they will spout their opposition righteously and not do much.

Since they can't easily remove the faculty and there are gun friendly ones, firing a staff member would be extremely discriminative and they wouldn't want that mess.

Last, there are surprisingly folks to the left/liberal end of the spectrum who support gun rights. How about that? Some are even more vocal than their conservative colleagues (and how do I know that?).

GEM

2up1down wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

steve817 wrote:My company changed our handbook just this year that says something to the effect of
Weapons are prohibited on company property unless allowed by local law. Guess they saw this one coming and decided to go with the flow.

To me it sounds like your handbook gives you the go ahead to carry at work provided you have your CHL.
IANAL

CHL is NOT necessary according to the following legal opinion.

* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Proof that SB321 is not limited to CHL's

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sun May 29, 2011 5:57 pm
The question as to whether SB321 (employer parking lots) applies only to CHL’s or to everyone who lawfully possesses a handgun is being discussed not only here on TexasCHLforum, but on at least one other gun board as well. Hopefully I can settle this issue once and for all by providing proof that SB321 does cover everyone, not just CHL’s.

As I have stated several times, the language of SB321 is absolutely clear and unequivocal. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say the bill is ambiguous on the issue of who is protected by this Bill. To answer the question, we look to the legislative history of SB321. The first two questions to ask when reviewing and evaluating the legislative history are 1) “was there an amendment addressing the issue in question[?]"; and 2) "was the issue in question discussed during floor debate?” The answer to both of these threshold questions is yes.

Rep. Harold Dutton (D - Houston) offered Amendment 6 that would have amended SB321 so that it would apply only to CHL’s. The Amendment attempted to do so by “striking lines 14 - 16, and substituting ‘from transporting or storing the firearm that the person is licensed to carry and ammunition for that firearm in a locked,’.” Lines 14 - 16 that Rep. Dutton wanted to delete read "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," Amendment 6 failed when Rep. Kleinschmidt’s motion to table it prevailed. The failed attempt to amend SB321 to narrow it to cover only CHL's is conclusive proof that the Bill is not limited to CHL's and any/every court in the state would so hold.

The hearing in which all of this occurred took place on May 3rd, during the afternoon session. Rep. Dutton first brought up the issue of SB321 applying only to CHL’s at 4:25:03 on the video. He makes it clear that, to his dismay, SB321 applied to everyone who lawfully possesses a firearm, not merely CHL’s. An hour and a half later, Rep. Dutton offered Amendment 6 and discussions on his amendment appear at 6:03:10 until 6:16:35 when his Amendment was tabled.

Here are links to the documents and video proving that SB321 applies to everyone who lawfully possesses firearms, not merely CHL’s.

House Committee Report on SB321 that was up for floor debate on May 3rd;

Rep. Dutton Amendment 6 that would have narrowed SB321 to apply only to CHL’s (Pg. 2730 in the Journal; Pg. 48 in the link)

Here is a link to the House Chamber Video. Select the May 3rd afternoon session (1:00pm - 10:38pm) and you will find the discussions I cited at the times set out: 4:25:03 to 4:25:30; and 6:03:10 to 6:16:55.

The bottom line is this; SB321 is not limited to CHL’s. Even if the language of SB321 was ambiguous, which it is not, the legislative history of this Bill is abundantly clear on this issue.

Chas.
Texas Firearm Coalition - Join Us and Get Involved!
Project One Million:Texas - NRA

I was saying based on the text from the handbook it would be ok to carry in the building provided he had his CHL not talking about the parking lot which falls under the MPA.

BTW, Rice just hired three prominent UC cancer scholars. Guess they weren't worried.

Very few people worry about these issues.

The problem is that some of them are in the right position to make a fuss. That includes some in academia, corporate HR and legal departments, and the media.

- Jim

speedsix wrote:...I have never heard of an employer searching cars on the parking lot...I can see where perhaps a defense-related employer might have that strict a policy...but who can name others that actually search employees cars, either with a walk-by with a dog, or force the employee to open the vehicle so that they can search it????

Oh...they exist alright. I worked for just such a company for 17 yrs (not defense related either).

The danger is that any company (or head of a company) in Texas.... CAN (as a requirement of employment), retain the right to search.

Even if they don't now....any company strongly opposed to firearms....might use the new law as the impetus to enact the right to search (at their place of business). Will it happen, I don't know, but I am always looking ahead.

loadedliberal wrote:

steve817 wrote:My company changed our handbook just this year that says something to the effect of
Weapons are prohibited on company property unless allowed by local law. Guess they saw this one coming and decided to go with the flow.

To me it sounds like your handbook gives you the go ahead to carry at work provided you have your CHL.
IANAL

I would have to look up the exact verbiage but as it stands today I can't.

OK I found it,

Unless local law expressly permits possession of a weapon in a locked personal vehicle on company property, you may not possess or use any weapon or any component of a weapon (e.g. ammunition) on company property

...sounds like the new law will cover you, then...

GEM-Texas wrote:Great find but we are in the 5th Circuit. However, precedents count. The article seems to knock the socks off the private property ranters that we've seen here.

Can the TX AG speak to the issue as was done previously on other parking lot interpretations?

Also for faculty (harking back to college issues) - at least for tenured faculty (and those on the tenure track), firing at will isn't possible unless there is great moral or legal violations. This would not be such reason, it would seem.

Private property ranters? I would dare to bet that you are quite protective of your very own private property rights. Why shouldn't a company be?

When Florida passed their parking lot law back in 2008, our company put out an email to all of the employees with this info:

XXXXXX Company Guidelines - Weapons or Firearms on Company Premises

Possession of any firearms or other weapons is prohibited on Company premises, in Company vehicles or on the Employee's person while engaged in Company business outside of Company premises, regardless of whether possession of the weapon is permitted under applicable state or federal law.

Any possession, use, display, brandishing, gesture or intimidation with a firearm or other weapon on Company premises is a violation of the Company’s Code of Business Conduct subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, storage of a lawfully possessed weapon in a personal vehicle on Company premises is permitted when, and only to the extent that, state law prohibits the Company from banning such storage.

We've done the employer is king of his employees and his parking lot ad nauseum. Go find and re-read those debates.

BTW, that 5 th circuit decision in OK speaks to the issue quite well. I'm glad so many employers care for the welfare of their employees as compared to their supposed financial risk.

GEM-Texas wrote:We've done the employer is king of his employees and his parking lot ad nauseum. Go find and re-read those debates.

BTW, that 5 th circuit decision in OK speaks to the issue quite well. I'm glad so many employers care for the welfare of their employees as compared to their supposed financial risk.

I think I have been in those debates.

Then you know the issues. No reason to replay them and divert from the topic at hand.

The issue isn't the theory of private property but legalisms that might result from the interaction of the law and attempts to circumvent it with some handbook language, perhaps demanding searches.