TexasCHLforum.com

OldAg wrote: Another example that you referenced would be the chemical plants on the south side of the city. You could keep a weapon locked in your personal vehicle as long as it was outside of the security fence. If you were to drive into the plant with your weapon, not only could you be fired (as all the companies have it against their policies) but, you also could be arrested since the secured area of a chemical plant is spelled out as a prohibited area in the State statutes.

Hope this helps.

You can drive pass the gate and inside the fence of an oil and chemical plant, as long as there is no 30.06 sign or have recieved legal verbal/written notification.

I need to clarify my post.

I was talking specifically about employees of those chemical companies. The statute that I was thinking of is the same one that requires companies to allow employees to be able to leave their weapons locked in their personal vehicles in the parking lot (Labor Code 52.061) which has an exception for inside the secured area of the plant (LC 52.062).

The company doesn't have to post 30.06/07 notices for the employees because they have already given them verbal notice that handguns are prohibited on company property.

OldAg wrote:I need to clarify my post.

I was talking specifically about employees of those chemical companies. The statute that I was thinking of is the same one that requires companies to allow employees to be able to leave their weapons locked in their personal vehicles in the parking lot (Labor Code 52.061) which has an exception for inside the secured area of the plant (LC 52.062).

The company doesn't have to post 30.06/07 notices for the employees because they have already given them verbal notice that handguns are prohibited on company property.

What is the statute that an employee of a chemical plant would be charged with for having a gun in their car? LC 52.062 is not a criminal statute and 30.06 doesn't apply to carrying in your vehicle.

It depends on whether the parking lot is inside the secured portion of the refinery/chemical plant property or not.

Again, not a lawyer, but my understanding is that carrying into a business after being given verbal notice is a Class A misdemeanor. The clause in the labor code just exempts a chemical plant from the protection that you can claim that it was stored in your locked vehicle in their parking lot (since we are talking about inside the secured area).

Not sure what section to post this in, didn't see it posted yet.
Ban on guns in Fort Worth spreads to a museum from Zoo

Guns are not allowed any more at the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local ... 91539.html

“The law does not prevent them from posting. No, we concur with that,” Holcomb said. “But is the law preventing me from carrying past that sign? The law doesn’t answer that.”

So he said he’s giving state lawmakers until the end of the 85th Legislature in May to straighten out the issue.

“I’m asking the Legislature to fix this,” he said. “They’re creating a dangerous situation for people when they say, ‘Yeah, you can post,’ and ‘Yeah, you can ignore the post.’ ”

Probably would go to this link:

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=80848

I filed the complaint against the City for the Museum (actually the Omni Theater) and the letter from the AG was just regurgitating the opinion regarding the zoo. It effectively said that, since the City wasn't posting the sign, they were not violating the law. However, the actual AG opinion also stated that, since it was government property, the AG's opinion was that the 30.06 posting was not valid.

It will probably require a test case unless the Legislature fixes it this session.

mojo84 wrote:It depends on whether the parking lot is inside the secured portion of the refinery/chemical plant property or not.

Again, what statute would you be charged under if you carried into the secured portion of refinery/chemical plant property IN YOUR CAR?

OldAg wrote:Probably would go to this link:

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=80848

I filed the complaint against the City for the Museum (actually the Omni Theater) and the letter from the AG was just regurgitating the opinion regarding the zoo. It effectively said that, since the City wasn't posting the sign, they were not violating the law. However, the actual AG opinion also stated that, since it was government property, the AG's opinion was that the 30.06 posting was not valid.

It will probably require a test case unless the Legislature fixes it this session.

Have you noticed that the FW museum now declares itself to be a "museum school". They put out some new sign on the building, including the word "school" in the last few months.

HB 560 cannot pass fast enough.

I had the opportunity to attend a meeting last night where the speaker was Attorney General Paxton. We could write down questions for him.

Here was mine.

What does the 2017 Legislature need to do to deal with the government entities that continue to prohibit licensed carry even after the "fines for signs" legislation passed

The person asking all of the questions just happened to be an LTC instructor and embellished my question with his own information.

General Paxton first laughed and talked about his surprise to find out that his office had been tagged with enforcement for the fines for signs. He thanked Donna Campbell for doing that. It was obviously a humorous lead in to what he wanted to say. He said that he had the concern about the inappropriate actions of governments against CHL/LTC while he was still in the Legislature himself.

He said that he felt much could be accomplished by simply tightening up a few definitions. He did not elaborate on exactly which ones or how many of them there were. I was pleased to hear his advocacy for the concept, even if his office has not been as vigorous in that as some of us might have wished.

I was surprised by the depth of his activities. I hadn't realized that his office has 4,200 employees. I also didn't realize that his largest duty was the collection and distribution of child support payments. He talked about how much he was spending on that activity versus other States and how Texas compares with NY in that regard. He also talked in fairly significant detail about the number of times his office has sued the Federal government and the collaboration among the States in those suits. Given all of that, he talked about his office going out to individual court houses to try to determine the situation regarding posting of 30.06 signs.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything comes out of the current session. General Paxton was firm against LTC carry in court houses so I'm not sure exactly what path is open for situations like the one that I faced again yesterday at the Precinct 3 building for Denton County in Lewisville.

AJSully421 wrote:

OldAg wrote:Probably would go to this link:

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=80848

I filed the complaint against the City for the Museum (actually the Omni Theater) and the letter from the AG was just regurgitating the opinion regarding the zoo. It effectively said that, since the City wasn't posting the sign, they were not violating the law. However, the actual AG opinion also stated that, since it was government property, the AG's opinion was that the 30.06 posting was not valid.

It will probably require a test case unless the Legislature fixes it this session.

Have you noticed that the FW museum now declares itself to be a "museum school". They put out some new sign on the building, including the word "school" in the last few months.

HB 560 cannot pass fast enough.

Museum school. So this museum gives classes to other museums?

Just to bump this topic. Went to the Denton County Precinct 3 Building today and I carried concealed past the 30.06 sign. I'm still shaking from the thought of possibly "taking the ride". I pocket carried a .380 auto and the Constable on duty didn't notice... whew!!!

With respect to Paxton, his office does not do most of the work collecting child support, thousands of small business owners do. We are the ones who have to submit all new employees to the state, then we get a child support withholding order via email or snail mail. It tells us how much to withhold, for the most part. We still have to do some calculations depending on the amount. Then WE make a check payable to the State each pay period and mail it with a cover letter detailing which orders it applies to and the amounts. Even for one employee, this takes me about 10 minutes per week. Keep in mind, we are the ones that keep the state updated on the addresses, and we have to let the state know if the employee address changes. If the person quits or is fired, we have to let the State know, and they even ask if we know where the person is now employed, although I never bother.

So, Sorry Mr. Paxton, but the majority of man hours collecting child support is done by thousands of business owners, not you. It is a hidden cost of doing business that owners soon learn about.

If a business openly disobeyed the child support law like local governments do in regards to posting 30.06 signs, I can guarantee you Mr. Paxton would have you in court quickly and fine you big time. Sorry, but I cannot respect the man at this time. He makes sure I obey the law, I expect him to do the same of local governments.

sbrawley wrote:The public lobby at the Harris County Sheriff's processing center is now posted with a big red ugly 30.06 sign. This is on the public side where there is no access to the secure side.

Elections have consequences. - Someone "famous".