Page 1 of 1

HB896 Regarding employer parking lots and CHLs

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:29 pm
by dolanp
New bill has been filed today, HB896. This bill seeks to prevent any employer from prohibiting possession of firearms by CHL holders in company parking lots or garages. It also removes any civil liability from occurences arising from the CHL holders carrying.

Link to the Bill


relating to the rights and liabilities of an employer with respect
to the carrying of a concealed handgun.
SECTION 1. Section 411.203, Government Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(a) This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right
of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed
under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the
premises of the business. A public or private employer may not
establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the
effect of prohibiting a person licensed under this subchapter from
transporting or storing a concealed handgun in a locked vehicle in
any parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area.
(b) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil
action for damages resulting from an occurrence involving the
possession of a concealed handgun by a person licensed under this
(c) This section does not authorize a person licensed under
this subchapter to carry a concealed handgun on any premises where
the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited by state or
federal law.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.
Write your rep to support this good bill.

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:22 pm
by Warhorse545
I really hope this goes through. My work place bans it. Upper Management are about as anti-gun as they come. Has always annoyed me. And I do not work in the best of places in Austin and I would nights. This would help out matters a lot.


Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:31 pm
by fiftycal

I hope you keep up with this bill and call Farabee and tell him you support the bill and then call your Rep. and Senator and tell them you support the bill.

This is a big problem and it pits the "property rights" conservatives against the gun owners and allows the anti's to sit in the corner and gloat.

This is not an easy problem and will require finnese to overcome.

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:20 am
by Charles L. Cotton
fiftycal wrote:This is a big problem and it pits the "property rights" conservatives against the gun owners . . .
That was a big part of the discussion within the TSRA Legislative Committee and with others. Most pro-gun people also have great respect for private property rights and rightfully so.

However, there has long been a precedent for greater regulation of commercial property. For example, commercial property is subject to fire codes, mandatory access for the handicapped, exit doors must be unlocked during business hours, stairs must have handrails, occupancy limits exist for many commercial locations, etc. Further, employers are subject to state and federal laws regarding the provision of a safe work place for employees, such as mandatory design criteria for vertical ladders at plants, emergency showers, and lighting requirements. Many cities prohibit smoking in commercial buildings, such as office buildings and restaurants. So owners of commercial property, including employers, do not enjoy the degree of unfettered use of their private property as do non-commercial owners such as homeowners.

There is ample legal precedent for this relatively minor additional restriction on the private property rights of employers in this commercial setting. But I fully agree, there will be a fight over this issue and TSRA understands this is an important issue for many CHL holders.

The bill also provides immunity to employers, so they will not be forced to shoulder any potential liability for the acts of a CHL employee.


Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:15 am
by dws1117
This bill needs to pass. A corporation shouldn't have the right to effectively disarm an employee, who is a CHL holder, from the time they leave thier home until the time they get back home.

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:06 pm
by Baytown
I have always said if an employer is dead set on not having guns in the parking lot, etc..., then the need to have a gun check or gun lockers just like the jail and prison dose.

If it was an either or, I bet you a dollar a doughnut, that the employers would elect to have employees leave guns in the car.


Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:52 pm
Had a great system at a previous place of employment. Official policy was no guns, no where, no how...but they had an active shooting range on company property. If you were a range officer, and were planning on using the range, you could have a gun in your car. We never had to campaign to get volunteers to be range officers.

Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:27 pm
by oilman
I too would like this to pass. My employer should not be able to disarm me from the time I leave the house until the time I return home. There is also a shooting range a few minutes from work. The current law prevents me from going directly from work to the range.

The law allows me to have a gun in my car in a school parking lot. I should be able to do the same in the parking lot at work.


Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:59 am
by Charles L. Cotton
I obviously agree, as you can see from my earlier post. HB896 was referred to the Law Enforcement Committee, but has not yet been set for hearing. (Hearings are just starting to be set.) This is a good committee for our issue, as there are a number of members who respect both the Second Amendment and the firearm protections in the Texas Constitution.

As I read the tea leaves, we probably have at least 5 A and A+ members and one D rated member (Burnam). I realize there are two "?’s" on the TSRA Voters Guide, but at least one of them (Jackson) should be good on our issue. The other (Veasey) claims to support 2A rights, but we'll see when the votes are in.

Even with a "good" committee and a large majority of pro-2A members in the House and Senate, this could still be a fight. We will hear the phrase "private property rights" until the bill is passed or defeated. As I noted in an earlier post, there is ample precedent for this relatively minor additional restriction on the private property rights of employers. I just hope we can get it done in this legislative session.