TexasCHLforum.com

Recently I drove past a building that was 30.06 posted (properly) at it's perimeter fence. Before you could even pull onto the property or into the parking lot you saw the 30.06 signs. This started me thinking about just what the Parking Lot bill language would allow. I pulled up the 2009 bill and was surprised to see that it only covered employees. Assuming a similar version of the bill passes, employees could carry past the signs (in their vehicles), but contractors, vendors, visitors, etc. could not. Is the expectation that the 2011 bill will have similar language or can it be broadened so that anyone can have a concealed weapon in their vehicle?

Dad24GreatKids wrote:Recently I drove past a building that was 30.06 posted (properly) at it's perimeter fence. Before you could even pull onto the property or into the parking lot you saw the 30.06 signs. This started me thinking about just what the Parking Lot bill language would allow. I pulled up the 2009 bill and was surprised to see that it only covered employees. Assuming a similar version of the bill passes, employees could carry past the signs (in their vehicles), but contractors, vendors, visitors, etc. could not. Is the expectation that the 2011 bill will have similar language or can it be broadened so that anyone can have a concealed weapon in their vehicle?

That's a good question.

Dad24GreatKids wrote:employees could carry past the signs (in their vehicles), but contractors, vendors, visitors, etc. could not.

I think you assume too much that a parking lot bill as previously discussed would let anyone carry past a valid 30.06 sign. The "parking lot bill" - to my understanding - simply prohibits employers from prohibting employees from lawfully keeping guns in their vehicles while they're at work. If the parking lot is posted 30.06, then anyone with a CHL is not keeping a gun LAWFULLY in their car (of course depending on whether you agree with member SRothstein's argument that even a CHL holder could be considering to be carrying under MPA when the gun is left in car and not carried on person).

Personally, I'd like to see a much expanded parking lot bill that basically incorporates the definition of "premises" from PC 46.035 (f)(3)

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

... and states that PC 30.06 cannot be applied to items not defined as "premises"

Furthermore, would be WONDERFUL to give us the same rights/privileges in our vehicles that we enjoy in our homes - basically make our vehicles a moving extension of our homesteads - meaning as long as it stays in the car, no one anywhere can do anything about it. Period.

The prior versions of the parking lot bills and the one to be filed this session will make it unlawful for an employer to prohibit employees with CHL's (or otherwise lawfully possessed firearms) from having handguns in their cars. Posting 30.06 signs won't get around the law.

Chas.

Just keep it in your car and stay quiet about it.
Knowing you're going to be using that lot at some point in the day seems like a ridiculous reason to be unarmed for the entire day.
Or, if uneasy about using the posted lot then simply park somewhere else and walk.

MedicMan218 wrote:Just keep it in your car and stay quiet about it.
Knowing you're going to be using that lot at some point in the day seems like a ridiculous reason to be unarmed for the entire day.
Or, if uneasy about using the posted lot then simply park somewhere else and walk.

Easy enough to say, horrible in practice. We need the Parking Lot bill to pass.

I think the OP is specifically inquiring as to whether the language could/would also cover contractors and other visitors parking in commercial parking lot. I think it is a really good question and consideration.

If it is not worded broadly enough and only covers the actual employees of a particular company parking on that lot, many contractors/vendors would be left out of the expanded liberties. A contractor that visits multiple customers each day might still be legally prohibited from keep it in his car just because a single one of those stops might require him to park in a posted parking lot.

MedicMan218 wrote:Just keep it in your car and stay quiet about it.
Knowing you're going to be using that lot at some point in the day seems like a ridiculous reason to be unarmed for the entire day.
Or, if uneasy about using the posted lot then simply park somewhere else and walk.

And passing a 30.06 sign is illegal, and promoting illegal activity is a violation of the forum rules. Your second suggestion is the only one that is legally valid unfortunately.

terryg wrote:I think the OP is specifically inquiring as to whether the language could/would also cover contractors and other visitors parking in commercial parking lot. I think it is a really good question and consideration.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The prior versions of the parking lot bills and the one to be filed this session will make it unlawful for an employer to prohibit employees with CHL's (or otherwise lawfully possessed firearms) from having handguns in their cars. Posting 30.06 signs won't get around the law.

Chas.

Terry, I think Charles answered your question. It sounds like posted parking lots would be non-compliant, and would have no bearing on non-employees.

Charles, if you see this, could you please expound on this aspect? Thanks.

Fair enough, I knew I'd catch a little flack, and my apologies, but I just see no scenario where not being able to have your weapon locked up in your vehicle is reasonable...and hopefully the new bill will address this. But not likely as it only applier employees or a certain place.
I think posting a parking lot is silly anyways.
If they want to post a building that people can actually walk in to then fine, they can do whatever they want.
But posting a parking lot and and building makes no sense to me. If the building is posted then the weapon will remain in the car and not be an issue in my opinion.
I know I saw someone mention it somewhere else but would the MPA not play in to this at all?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

terryg wrote:I think the OP is specifically inquiring as to whether the language could/would also cover contractors and other visitors parking in commercial parking lot. I think it is a really good question and consideration.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The prior versions of the parking lot bills and the one to be filed this session will make it unlawful for an employer to prohibit employees with CHL's (or otherwise lawfully possessed firearms) from having handguns in their cars. Posting 30.06 signs won't get around the law.

Chas.

Terry, I think Charles answered your question. It sounds like posted parking lots would be non-compliant, and would have no bearing on non-employees.

Charles, if you see this, could you please expound on this aspect? Thanks.

Charles answer says that the sign would be non-compliant for employees only. The sign would still be legal for non-employees.

I'm guessing that even if the parking lot bill passes (and of course I hope it does), this will not help those of us who work on Federal property. Thoughts?

JJVP wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

terryg wrote:I think the OP is specifically inquiring as to whether the language could/would also cover contractors and other visitors parking in commercial parking lot. I think it is a really good question and consideration.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The prior versions of the parking lot bills and the one to be filed this session will make it unlawful for an employer to prohibit employees with CHL's (or otherwise lawfully possessed firearms) from having handguns in their cars. Posting 30.06 signs won't get around the law.

Chas.

Terry, I think Charles answered your question. It sounds like posted parking lots would be non-compliant, and would have no bearing on non-employees.

Charles, if you see this, could you please expound on this aspect? Thanks.

Charles answer says that the sign would be non-compliant for employees only. The sign would still be legal for non-employees.

That is how I read Charles' response. If a parking lot bill with the 2009 language were to pass then the 30.06 signs are still valid for non employees. I personally would like the bill's language broad enough to allow all CHLs to carry past the sign into that parking lot. I have limited knowledge of the MPA but as I understand it a non CHL could carry into that parking lot.

Dad24GreatKids wrote:

JJVP wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

terryg wrote:I think the OP is specifically inquiring as to whether the language could/would also cover contractors and other visitors parking in commercial parking lot. I think it is a really good question and consideration.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The prior versions of the parking lot bills and the one to be filed this session will make it unlawful for an employer to prohibit employees with CHL's (or otherwise lawfully possessed firearms) from having handguns in their cars. Posting 30.06 signs won't get around the law.

Chas.

Terry, I think Charles answered your question. It sounds like posted parking lots would be non-compliant, and would have no bearing on non-employees.

Charles, if you see this, could you please expound on this aspect? Thanks.

Charles answer says that the sign would be non-compliant for employees only. The sign would still be legal for non-employees.

That is how I read Charles' response. If a parking lot bill with the 2009 language were to pass then the 30.06 signs are still valid for non employees. I personally would like the bill's language broad enough to allow all CHLs to carry past the sign into that parking lot. I have limited knowledge of the MPA but as I understand it a non CHL could carry into that parking lot.

First of all, thanks to Charles for his clarification. Seems I was the one making incorrect assumptions

But I too would like clarification on how this will be done legislatively to let an employee carry past a 30.06-posted parking lot or garage but not a non-employee? Also clarification on employee vs. contractor vs. temp worker etc? Seems to me that some real hard-core anti-gun employer might just tell all his "employees" they're now independent contractors and change their pay structure accordingly.

Also wouldn't the scenario of employees ignoring a 30.06 parking area just substitute one bad scenario (employees can't keep gun in car for fear of losing job) for another (non-employees can't keep gun in car for fear of arrest)?

Well, my employer does not post any 30.06 signs and hopefully they won't. The parking lot is privately owned by my company with controlled access to the main lot. However, the controlled access is flimsy at best. It is an arm that raises when we wave our ID at the sensor and can be broken off easily with one arm. I can also ride my motorcycle around it without any trouble or even coming close to scrapping the arm. It also does not prevent anyone from walking onto the property. A second or even third car can enter behind one that has raised the arm and there is no one there to stop them. The visitor's lot has no gate and is only separated from the employee lot by a sidewalk and or a few feet of grass. I hope no one ever tells them of their ignorance.