TexasCHLforum.com

Time scale for Governor Perry to sign this - if he isn't busy running for President?

IIRC Governor must sign or veto within 10 days while Leg is in session; 20 days if it isn't.

Becomes law Sept 1st if signed or even if he does nothing. I doubt he'd veto.


I could be wrong, but I think that's the process.

Per the DOD contractors

Fort Worth Lockheed would be a problem since it is Federally owned property which is leased by LM with access controlled parking

Bell owns its property so the SB321 should apply but of course your mileage may vary.

My employer clearly states in the employee manual that firearms were prohibited from being stored in private vehicles parked on company property. The paragraph in the manual even mentioned if employee had a CHL. I can not wait for Governer Perry to sign this bill and for Sept. 1 to get here. Thanks to everyone that banged out the phone calls and burned up the fax machines.

YEE HAW Y'ALL!!!

Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.

GEM-Texas wrote:Time scale for Governor Perry to sign this - if he isn't busy running for President?

Once he does, his name is worthy of appearing on all guns, not just a limited-edition LCP

rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.

No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?
No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.

Very important detail.

As far as lots or garages with 30.06 at the entrances in general, is a gun which remains in a locked vehicle exempt?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.

No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.

But the sign would still apply to customers, visitors and other people who aren't employees. Right?

tbrown wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.

No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.

But the sign would still apply to customers, visitors and other people who aren't employees. Right?

Correct.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tbrown wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.

No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.

But the sign would still apply to customers, visitors and other people who aren't employees. Right?

Correct.

Chas.

So how would it affect (if at all) those folks if they were carrying (in their vehicle) under MPA?

This bill applies to the relationship between the employer and the employee.

Per the DOD contractors

Fort Worth Lockheed would be a problem since it is Federally owned property which is leased by LM with access controlled parking

Lockheed in Fort Worth has most, but not all, of its buildings in on Federal Property. They lease a couple of their buildings from a commercial real-estate firm. These leased buildings are not on federal property or owned by Lockheed.

If a Lockheed employee works at one of the buildings that's not on Federal property, then they should be able to carry under SB321. What would get tricky is when they have to drive over to one of the other buildings that is located on Federal property.

flintknapper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tbrown wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.

No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.

But the sign would still apply to customers, visitors and other people who aren't employees. Right?

Correct.

Chas.

So how would it affect (if at all) those folks if they were carrying (in their vehicle) under MPA?

Non-CHL Employees with handguns in their cars pursuant to the MPA are protected by SB321, so long as they don't work for a chemical manufacturing plant or a refinery.

Chas.

AggieCHL wrote:

Per the DOD contractors

Fort Worth Lockheed would be a problem since it is Federally owned property which is leased by LM with access controlled parking

Lockheed in Fort Worth has most, but not all, of its buildings in on Federal Property. They lease a couple of their buildings from a commercial real-estate firm. These leased buildings are not on federal property or owned by Lockheed.

If a Lockheed employee works at one of the buildings that's not on Federal property, then they should be able to carry under SB321. What would get tricky is when they have to drive over to one of the other buildings that is located on Federal property.

Lockheed has several facilities around the DFW area and the only one that I know of for sure that is on Federal Property is the Main Plant out at Carswell. Look out for Lockheed and other DOD contractors to claim that they manufacture Chemicals or Explosives in order to circumvent the bill.