TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:


[i

If farmer Brown executed a mineral lease and demanded a paragraph to keep drilling company employees or oil and gas company employees from having guns on farmer Brown's property, then the employer can prohibit guns in the parking area provided for people working on wells. There was a killer amendment added in the Senate last session that dealt with this, but it was too broad. This is narrower language to deal only with that issue and it won't apply to future leases, i.e. those executed after Sept. 1, 2011.

Good intentions, I suppose. I don't know how many legislators have actually visited a site being drilled, but I can tell you....rarely is there anything resembling a designated parking space. Lacking that...how do they intend to enforce it?

I did not verify the information we were provided, but we were told that some landowners require a "no guns" provision in leases because drilling or oil company personnel are known to hunt on land under a mineral lease when the landowner does not live on the property.

Separate issue altogether. In NO WAY (unless stipulated in the lease agreement), is ANYONE allowed/entitled to hunt the land....anymore than they would be allowed to go 4wheeling on it, take firewood from it, fish the ponds, etc...

So? If the owner wanted to prevent the drilling companies personnel from hunting, why didn't they just put a "No Hunting" clause in the contract? Wouldn't the "No Guns" clause open the land up to hunting with a bow? Trapping? Snares? Spears? Knife Throwing? ....

sjfcontrol wrote:So? If the owner wanted to prevent the drilling companies personnel from hunting, why didn't they just put a "No Hunting" clause in the contract? Wouldn't the "No Guns" clause open the land up to hunting with a bow? Trapping? Snares? Spears? Knife Throwing? ....

Your list makes me wonder what a professional steer wrestler could do to a smallish 6-point buck ..... then I remember that great story about the guy who tried to rope the dear and ....

austinrealtor wrote:then I remember that great story about the guy who tried to rope the dear and ....

guess I don't know that story...

sjfcontrol wrote:

So? If the owner wanted to prevent the drilling companies personnel from hunting, why didn't they just put a "No Hunting" clause in the contract?

It isn't necessary to spell out each and everything that is and isn't allowed in a typical Gas/Oil lease. The lease is for the rights of production of certain minerals, it is not a lease for any/every potential use of the land. It is understood (and stated in the lease)... that the company will have reasonable access to the property and be allowed to perform all necessary and customary practices to acquire the mineral.

Typically, the Oil/Gas company... holding the lease.... is liable to the landowner for certain types of "top" damage (crops, pastures, timber, water, etc). I havea lease on my land, there are leases all around us...and I know of NO ONE that has included a hunting/recreational clause in their lease.

Wouldn't the "No Guns" clause open the land up to hunting with a bow? Trapping? Snares? Spears? Knife Throwing? .

No, excluding one method...does not automatically open it up to others. The only benefit of the proposed law....is that it would put some teeth in prosecuting an offense, since currently... the land must be legally posted in order to effect much punishment.

The real problem simply lies with the Oil/Gas companies and their general disinterest with the welfare of the landowner...once the lease is secured. IF you happen to get a GOOD landman...he will make certain the land is not abused and that employees under his authority are quickly weeded out if they get out of line.

flintknapper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If farmer Brown executed a mineral lease and demanded a paragraph to keep drilling company employees or oil and gas company employees from having guns on farmer Brown's property, then the employer can prohibit guns in the parking area provided for people working on wells. There was a killer amendment added in the Senate last session that dealt with this, but it was too broad. This is narrower language to deal only with that issue and it won't apply to future leases, i.e. those executed after Sept. 1, 2011.

Good intentions, I suppose. I don't know how many legislators have actually visited a site being drilled, but I can tell you....rarely is there anything resembling a designated parking space. Lacking that...how do they intend to enforce it?

It would apply to anywhere the employee parked. It doesn't have to be paved or otherwise improved. If an employee steps out of the vehicle, it's parked and the exclusion would apply.

flintknapper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I did not verify the information we were provided, but we were told that some landowners require a "no guns" provision in leases because drilling or oil company personnel are known to hunt on land under a mineral lease when the landowner does not live on the property.

Separate issue altogether. In NO WAY (unless stipulated in the lease agreement), is ANYONE allowed/entitled to hunt the land....anymore than they would be allowed to go 4wheeling on it, take firewood from it, fish the ponds, etc...

It's not a separate issue and I agree that people cannot legally hunt on another person's property without permission. But is is done and that's why the "no guns" language is in some O&G leases. If the employer parking lot bill were to pass without this exception and an oil and gas company has leases with the "no guns" provision, then the law would force the employer to breach the contract.

This exception will impact very few people; the school district will impact tens of thousands.

Chas.

flintknapper wrote:sjfcontrol wrote:

So? If the owner wanted to prevent the drilling companies personnel from hunting, why didn't they just put a "No Hunting" clause in the contract?

It isn't necessary to spell out each and everything that is and isn't allowed in a typical Gas/Oil lease. The lease is for the rights of production of certain minerals, it is not a lease for any/every potential use of the land. It is understood (and stated in the lease)... that the company will have reasonable access to the property and be allowed to perform all necessary and customary practices to acquire the mineral.

Typically, the Oil/Gas company... holding the lease.... is liable to the landowner for certain types of "top" damage (crops, pastures, timber, water, etc). I havea lease on my land, there are leases all around us...and I know of NO ONE that has included a hunting/recreational clause in their lease.

Wouldn't the "No Guns" clause open the land up to hunting with a bow? Trapping? Snares? Spears? Knife Throwing? .

No, excluding one method...does not automatically open it up to others. The only benefit of the proposed law....is that it would put some teeth in prosecuting an offense, since currently... the land must be legally posted in order to effect much punishment.

The real problem simply lies with the Oil/Gas companies and their general disinterest with the welfare of the landowner...once the lease is secured. IF you happen to get a GOOD landman...he will make certain the land is not abused and that employees under his authority are quickly weeded out if they get out of line.

Well, my posing was at least partially tongue-in-cheek. But my point was that the statement that the "no guns" clause was to prevent the employees from hunting wouldn't do what it was intended to do. If hunting was an issue that needed to be contractually resolved, it should be spelled out that hunting was not allowed. The end-around "no guns" clause would only (presumably) prevent one form of hunting.

I gather your posting is stating that no form of hunting (or indeed ANY recreational use) was allowed anyway. So again, the "no guns" clause was irrelevant.

sjfcontrol wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:then I remember that great story about the guy who tried to rope the dear and ....

guess I don't know that story...

http://www.darwinawards.com/legends/legends2007-02.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

austinrealtor wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:then I remember that great story about the guy who tried to rope the dear and ....

guess I don't know that story...

http://www.darwinawards.com/legends/legends2007-02.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah! Well, at least I didn't mention roping as a hunting method...

Is there an equivalent house bill, or does the house just wait for the senate bill to get kicked over to them?

RHenriksen wrote:Is there an equivalent house bill, or does the house just wait for the senate bill to get kicked over to them?

Here is a link that shows the process in an "easy" to read diagram. http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/legproc ... enate.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles Wrote:

It's not a separate issue and I agree that people cannot legally hunt on another person's property without permission.

I believe it is a separate issue since the premise (supposedly) is to help curtail illegal hunting on gas/oil leases. There are already game laws (and trespass laws) that address that issue. I can cite them if necessary. Also, why is the bill worded such that it only applies to the “parking area”, if illegal hunting is the issue? I can assure…no one is hunting anywhere near the activity center of a gas/oil rig.

But it is done and that's why the "no guns" language is in some O&G leases.

It is a problem on some leases, no doubt about it. So… if the land/mineral owner does not want guns (of any type) on his property, all he has to do is stipulate that… as a condition of the lease agreement.

The oil/gas company can accept those terms or not.

FWIW, everything (literally) is negotiable in a gas/oil lease agreement. If I didn’t want any Black Dodge Trucks on my property, I could put that in my lease agreement. Would legislators then come up with a law concerning that?

There is NO problem with lease agreement practices that need “fixing”, especially as concerns illegal hunting.

It would apply to anywhere the employee parked. It doesn't have to be paved or otherwise improved. If an employee steps out of the vehicle, it's parked and the exclusion would apply.

It can’t apply anywhere the employee is parked…because of the language of the bill. An exception would be that the employer deemed the entire property (under lease) as a parking lot.

But, it is common for only certain parts of a property to be under lease (just enough to create a pool for gas wells). So if an employee is parked 10 feet outside that area…..then what? (Happens all the time).

Also….what will be the definition of “parked”? If it is “stepping out of the vehicle” then all I need to do is drive around, shoot/hunt all I want, then… if I take an animal….my passenger gets out, retrieves it and the new parking lot exclusion has not technically been violated. There are already broader game laws on the books to address this. IMO, this is not the true purpose of the P/L exception anyway.

Again, I have not and will not do one second of research to confirm this statement since it came from someone I trust.

I’m good with that. I take you for your word…and your resources. I disagree (and will point out why), but do not require research or links to stats on your part.

If the employer parking lot bill were to pass without this exception and an oil and gas company has leases with the "no guns" provision, then the law would force the employer to breach the contract.

I don’t understand this part…unless the new law was made to be retroactive. Please explain, I am sure there is something I am missing.

This exception will impact very few people; the school district will impact tens of thousands.

The exception has the potential to affect a large number of people, depending upon how many choose to keep a firearm with them… under the methods currently legal (CHL, MPA, other).

But, even if one group is comparatively small, why throw them under the bus? Why is the security of an Oil Rig Worker less significant than that of Car Salesman, a Lawyer, a Nurse, or anyone else that parks a vehicle at their place of employment?

The answer is: It is not.

So, the only possible conclusion…is that these folks are being sacrificed (politicians will call this compromise) so that a lame (I mean amended) version of the Parking Lot bill has a chance of passing.

Then… maybe 10 yrs. down the road we can make a little more progress.

After all this time and effort…is this really the best we can do? Someone convince me.

I know from a previous thread on this topic that posting parking lots with 30.06 signs will not impact employees. But what about contractors or other visitors? Is the notice still valid for them? Also, what if a company tries to influence a third party to post 30.06 signs? For example, company A provides parking to their employees in a garaged owned / managed by company B. Company A gets Company B to post their garage. Does the parking lot bill still apply?

Dad24GreatKids wrote:I know from a previous thread on this topic that posting parking lots with 30.06 signs will not impact employees. But what about contractors or other visitors? Is the notice still valid for them? Also, what if a company tries to influence a third party to post 30.06 signs? For example, company A provides parking to their employees in a garaged owned / managed by company B. Company A gets Company B to post their garage. Does the parking lot bill still apply?

I am not a lawyer, but I think I know the answer to both. Unless you are an employee of that business, then the 30.06 would prohibit you from entering the lot. As a contractor, I think you might be able to say you are an employee as you are being employed, although temporarily, to work for them and are being paid. Visitors are unfortunately out of luck.

On the second part, if your employer leases the location (or a portion), and the parking lot is to be used by employees, then the lot would not be off limits to you. Now, if it is a open garage that is not for employees to park in (like a public garage or private but for pay lot that you personally contract with) then, you couldn't pass the 30.06.

When do we get the bill that extends the rights reaffirmed under Heller and McDonald to our private motor vehicles? We already have Castle Doctrine protections for both home and car. And those without a CHL can leave their guns in their car in a 30.06-posted parking lot.

30.06 needs to be amended to exclude firearms left in vehicles if the vehicle is otherwise allowed to park on property of another. I can see the point of 30.06 not being restricted to premises alone (though I disagree with any restrictions on carry on publicly accessible property of any kind), because someone may wish to keep guns off their private undeveloped land (like a privately-owned park).