Passage of TX Senate Bill 321

[Charles L. Cotton]

If I really wanted to be a jerk, as the owner of a corporation, I could start another corporation (with a different address/P.O. Box) that would then employ all of my current employees. The new corporation would then contract labor to my original corporation. All employees at the original site would then be contractors who do not benefit under the new law.

Such a persons would not be "contract personnel," they would be "leased employees" and the employer would be subject to SB321.

Chas.

Is that in Texas law somewhere? For example, the security guards at the chemical plants usually are employed by a guard service that places them at the plant. Does that mean they're also employees of the plant and not contract personnel?

Yes, it's in Texas statutory law as well as case law. Chp. 91 of the Texas Labor Code covers staff leasing companies and their clients. §91.007 expressly reads "This chapter does not relieve a client company of a right, obligation, or duty under: . . . (4) any other law governing labor relations. The provisions of SB321 all within Subsection (4).

Chas.

[Hans]

Hi all,

I'm new to the site. Been lurking for a while and I figured its time to start contributing. I wanted to share this email I received yesterday regarding SB 321. My understanding of the section of the Texas labor code Mr. Cotton shared is that a company is prohibited from treating contractors differently from employees when it comes to laws regarding labor relations (including SB321). However, one of the local refineries sent out an email stating SB321 does not protect contractors and visitors (I've attached it below slightly redacted to focus on the content rather than the company). SB321 is a new law and has not been tested in the courts yet. Opponents may attempt to circumvent the intent of the law using methods already discussed here. The following email may be one of those attempts. Any thoughts?

Hans


Re: New Texas Firearms Law

You may be aware that on September 1, 2011, a new Texas firearms law (Senate Bill 321) will go into effect. Although this new law may Affect some (company) employees, it has no effect with respect to Contractors or visitors at (company) facilities.

Accordingly, contractors and visitors continue to be prohibited from transporting or storing firearms or ammunition on (company) property, including, but not limited to, buildings, operational areas, and parking facilities.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

(name)
Contract Administration Section Supervisor Phone (XXX-XXX-XXXX)
Email: name@company.com

[Keith B]

Hi all,

I'm new to the site. Been lurking for a while and I figured its time to start contributing. I wanted to share this email I received yesterday regarding SB 321. My understanding of the section of the Texas labor code Mr. Cotton shared is that a company is prohibited from treating contractors differently from employees when it comes to laws regarding labor relations (including SB321). However, one of the local refineries sent out an email stating SB321 does not protect contractors and visitors (I've attached it below slightly redacted to focus on the content rather than the company). SB321 is a new law and has not been tested in the courts yet. Opponents may attempt to circumvent the intent of the law using methods already discussed here. The following email may be one of those attempts. Any thoughts?

Hans


Re: New Texas Firearms Law

You may be aware that on September 1, 2011, a new Texas firearms law (Senate Bill 321) will go into effect. Although this new law may Affect some (company) employees, it has no effect with respect to Contractors or visitors at (company) facilities.

Accordingly, contractors and visitors continue to be prohibited from transporting or storing firearms or ammunition on (company) property, including, but not limited to, buildings, operational areas, and parking facilities.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

(name)
Contract Administration Section Supervisor Phone (XXX-XXX-XXXX)
Email: name@company.com

Hi Hans, and welcome to the forum.

Unfortunately, this is correct. The bill only covers employees, not contractors, vendors or other visitors to the company.

An example is if the company posted 30.06 signs on the parking lot, it would not apply to the employees, but no other CHL's can come onto the lot with a firearm in their vehicle.

The other thing to realize is the refineries have some more restrictions that they can place on employees with CHL's as to where they are allowed to park.

[Dave2]

"To ensure orderly operations and provide the best possible work environment, <XYZ> expects employees to follow rules of conduct that will protect the interests and safety of all employees and the organization.

Sounds like they're asking you not to muzzle anyone while you're CCing.

[Stormwatcher]

OK guys......people keep telling me that I should be able to keep my weapon stowed in my locked vehicle while parked at my chemical plant job.

The way I read it....

Sec 52.061. Says that I can

then

Sec 52.062. says "Exemptions" (a) Sec 52.061 does not
(2) apply to:
(F) property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who stores a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees that is outside of a secured and restricted area:
(i) that contains the physical plant;
(ii) that is not open to the public; and
(iii) the ingress into which is constantly

What part of this gives a CHL holder the right to stow? Everything I read says Sec 52.061 does not apply to......
Does the"except" except the "Exemptions"? This is way too confusing!

[Keith B]

OK guys......people keep telling me that I should be able to keep my weapon stowed in my locked vehicle while parked at my chemical plant job.

The way I read it....

Sec 52.061. Says that I can

then

Sec 52.062. says "Exemptions" (a) Sec 52.061 does not
(2) apply to:
(F) property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who stores a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees that is outside of a secured and restricted area:
(i) that contains the physical plant;
(ii) that is not open to the public; and
(iii) the ingress into which is constantly

What part of this gives a CHL holder the right to stow? Everything I read says Sec 52.061 does not apply to......
Does the"except" except the "Exemptions"? This is way too confusing!

The except means you are the exception as an employee if you have a CHL, and they cannot bar you from keeping it in your car as long as the parking lot at the petrochemical plant meets the guidelines in blue above.

Employees without a CHL can be barred from having a gun in their car at a petrochemical plant by company policy, just like prior to 9/1.

[Stormwatcher]

Ok.... Are you say the parking lot must meet all three or will only one of these prevent a CHL holder from stowing at a plant. Because ........ At my plant.....
(i) that contains the physical plant ( my plant is further into the complex and secured entry is needed for access.
(ii) that is not open to the public; and ( our gates stay open 100 % of the time during daylight hours and anyone can enter and park. At night..... Mostly after10:00pm the gates are closed.... Cause they really can't monitor the lot well anytime and traffic drops to nothing. During the day....it's a free for all)
(iii) the ingress to which is constantly monitored by security personnel. ( this is debatable. We do have security... This security has view of the ingress but rarely if ever monitor who enters the parking lot during the day due to the sheer volume of traffic and the opposite is probably true at night. Anyone enters during the day and late at night no one enters.

What's your thoughts!

[Keith B]

Ok.... Are you say the parking lot must meet all three or will only one of these prevent a CHL holder from stowing at a plant. Because ........ At my plant.....
(i) that contains the physical plant ( my plant is further into the complex and secured entry is needed for access.
(ii) that is not open to the public; and ( our gates stay open 100 % of the time during daylight hours and anyone can enter and park. At night..... Mostly after10:00pm the gates are closed.... Cause the really can't monitor the lot well anytime and traffic drops to nothing. During the day....it's a free for all)
(iii) the ingress to which is constantly monitored by security personnel. ( this is debatable. We do have security... This security has view of the ingress but rarely if ever monitor who enters the parking lot during the day due to the sheer volume of traffic and the opposite is probably true at night. Anyone enters during the day and late at night no one enters.

What's your thoughts!

I believe that the parking lot must meet all three criteria to be off limits, because of the AND statement at the end of (ii). However, it may be that (ii)&(iii) are together and (i) is stand alone with the combination of the last two.

Maybe Charles can weigh in on that part.

[canvasbck]

Ok.... Are you say the parking lot must meet all three or will only one of these prevent a CHL holder from stowing at a plant. Because ........ At my plant.....
(i) that contains the physical plant ( my plant is further into the complex and secured entry is needed for access.
(ii) that is not open to the public; and ( our gates stay open 100 % of the time during daylight hours and anyone can enter and park. At night..... Mostly after10:00pm the gates are closed.... Cause the really can't monitor the lot well anytime and traffic drops to nothing. During the day....it's a free for all)
(iii) the ingress to which is constantly monitored by security personnel. ( this is debatable. We do have security... This security has view of the ingress but rarely if ever monitor who enters the parking lot during the day due to the sheer volume of traffic and the opposite is probably true at night. Anyone enters during the day and late at night no one enters.

What's your thoughts!

The parking lot must meet all three prongs ofthe three pronged test. If what you state above is accurate, then the parking lot can not be considered within the secure area of the plant. If there is no means (such as locked gates, badge access, ect.) preventing the public from parking in the parking lot, then it is not within the secure area. IANAL but I have worked closely with our company's general counsel in developing our firearms policy.

[Keith B]

There's your answer Stormwatcher.

Thanks for the input canvasbck.

[Stormwatcher]

Yes..... I would like Charles' input also! Thanks canvasbck!

[Stormwatcher]

FYI for those who are interested....

I ran across an article from the Texas Firearms Coalition, written by a Charles Cotton. I really hope it is the Charles Cotton of this forum. It was an article written about Texas SB 321. The following is an excerpt from that article dated June 13, 2011.

In order to get the Bill out of committee, it was necessary to limit the application of SB321 to CHLs in chemical manufacturing plants and refineries. These companies wanted to be completely exempt from SB321 and, failing that, they wanted CHLs to be able to have only handguns in their cars. Fortunately, our friends in Austin stood firm and the only concession made was limiting SB321 to CHLs, but allowing them to have any type of firearm and ammunition they wish in their cars.

Here is a link to the entire article.....it's well worth the read!

https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... Itemid=248" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was also reading at http://www.nradefensefund.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and found this about a Charles Cotton.

Charles L. Cotton, Trustee
Friendswood, Texas

Current member of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors. Married with two sons. Committees: Finance, Legal Affairs, Bylaws and Resolutions, Action Pistol. Civil trial attorney and partner with successful Houston, Texas law firm. Consulted with Texas House of Representatives and Texas Senate sponsors of Texas' Concealed Handgun License (CHL) bills from 1993 through 1997, 1999, and 2003. Contributed language to the CHL statute and its amendments, and testified for CHL and anti-lawsuit legislation. At the request of the CHL authors, testified on implementation of the Texas CHL statute. Second Amendment advocate as interviewee on television, radio and talk shows and newspaper articles both before and after passage of Texas CHL statute. Seminar speaker on Texas' CHL statute and Texas firearms laws and state constitutional protections. Competitive shooter, hunter, collector and NRA Certified Instructor. Member TSRA, IDPA, IPSC, NSSR, LEAA, co-founder and Match Director of PSC-IDPA Match.

Please tell me this man and the Charles Cotton of this forum are the same person!

Needless to say.......I am much happier today than I was yesterday. I'll be armed on the way to and from work tomorrow! Thanks everyone for your help!

[Keith B]

FYI for those who are interested....

I ran across an article from the Texas Firearms Coalition, written by a Charles Cotton. I really hope it is the Charles Cotton of this forum. It was an article written about Texas SB 321. The following is an excerpt from that article dated June 13, 2011.

In order to get the Bill out of committee, it was necessary to limit the application of SB321 to CHLs in chemical manufacturing plants and refineries. These companies wanted to be completely exempt from SB321 and, failing that, they wanted CHLs to be able to have only handguns in their cars. Fortunately, our friends in Austin stood firm and the only concession made was limiting SB321 to CHLs, but allowing them to have any type of firearm and ammunition they wish in their cars.

Here is a link to the entire article.....it's well worth the read!

https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... Itemid=248" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was also reading at http://www.nradefensefund.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and found this about a Charles Cotton.

Charles L. Cotton, Trustee
Friendswood, Texas

Current member of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors. Married with two sons. Committees: Finance, Legal Affairs, Bylaws and Resolutions, Action Pistol. Civil trial attorney and partner with successful Houston, Texas law firm. Consulted with Texas House of Representatives and Texas Senate sponsors of Texas' Concealed Handgun License (CHL) bills from 1993 through 1997, 1999, and 2003. Contributed language to the CHL statute and its amendments, and testified for CHL and anti-lawsuit legislation. At the request of the CHL authors, testified on implementation of the Texas CHL statute. Second Amendment advocate as interviewee on television, radio and talk shows and newspaper articles both before and after passage of Texas CHL statute. Seminar speaker on Texas' CHL statute and Texas firearms laws and state constitutional protections. Competitive shooter, hunter, collector and NRA Certified Instructor. Member TSRA, IDPA, IPSC, NSSR, LEAA, co-founder and Match Director of PSC-IDPA Match.

Please tell me this man and the Charles Cotton of this forum are the same person!

Needless to say.......I am much happier today than I was yesterday. I'll be armed on the way to and from work tomorrow! Thanks everyone for your help!

Yes, it is one and the same Charles Cotton. Charles owns and personally provides this forum for free, as well as is the head of the Texas Firearms Coalition. Charles is a past Executive Director of the Texas State Rifle Association and is a long standing board member of both the TSRA and NRA from a legislative and legal advisory point. His contributions, guidance and lobbying of bills in the Texas legislature have done more to help us regain our firearms rights in this state than we can even fathom.

[BFGJoe]

I have read the "Section F" wording more times than I care to count, read many of the discussions about it here, and had our company lawyers weigh in on it and I am still not clear on its purpose. Can someone please help me get my head around this?

What is the purpose of "Section F"?
A.) To restrict firearm possession in POV's to only CHL's at locations described in "Section F" in the parking lots that meet the "3-pronged test (i-iii)"; all other parking lots at "Section F" locations are open for possession under MPA
B.) To restrict firearm possession in POV's at locations described in "Section F" to any MPA possession, but not CHL except in the parking lots that meet the "3-pronged test (i-iii)"

The company lawyers have interpreted the "3-prong test (i-iii) as being the definition of what "secured and restricted" areas are with respect to parking lots and says all firearms are prohibited in those areas (i.e. "B"). Other reading has led me to believe that the "3-prong test (i-iii) is what defines where CHL's can possess at "Section F" locations that MPA cannot (i.e. "A"). So what is it? Is there really that much room for interpretation here? After reading some on the legislative evolution of the bill it appears that the intent of "Section F" was "A". But I understand intent is not the end all be all.

Hope I conveyed my question correctly. While it probably seems evident to many that this has already been addressed in previous discussion, I would appreciate any help in getting this squared away in my mind. Looking to be an advocate for getting policies corrected for several large companies that have locations that operate "Section F" facilities. You would be amazed at their first attempt at the non-"Section F" stuff.

Thanks!
- Joe

[canvasbck]

Section F grants an exception to chemical plants and refineries, defined by the air permit, from the law. Those facilities operating under an air permit can prohibit employees from posessing a weapon ANYWHERE on the property under MPA.

CHL holders have an exemption from the exemption so long as their vehicle is outside of the secure area as defined by the three pronged test.

Broken down into bullet points:

1)At chemical plants and refineries, companies can prohibit anyone from posessing a weapon inside the secure area.

2) Those without a CHL can be barred from storing in a POV anywhere on the property.

3) Direct employees who posess a CHL may store firearms in a locked vehicle outside of the secure area.