Texas AG rules on weapons in employee parking lots

[dukalmighty]

TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT ISSUES FAVORABLE OPINION ON NRA-BACKED EMPLOYEE/PARKING LOT PROTECTION LAW!

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...tion-law!.aspx

Last week, the NRA-ILA updated you on the recent hearing by the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee (here) which included a review of the implementation of Senate Bill 321, the NRA-backed employee/parking lot protection legislation sponsored by state Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy) and Representative Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington) that was enacted during the 2011 legislative session.
A representative from the NRA-ILA testified at that hearing that some employers are claiming that their federally-approved facility security plans banning firearms in company parking lots override state law. Other employers have posted 30.06 signs outside their parking areas in an effort to prevent or discourage employees from transporting or storing lawfully-owned firearms in their private vehicles while parked at work. We mentioned that state Senator Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) had requested a ruling from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on these two points, and a formal opinion (here) was issued yesterday.
In summary, his opinion states:
* An employer subject to Section 52.061 of the Labor Code may not ban the transport and storage of handguns in locked private vehicles by employees with concealed handgun licenses in employee parking areas by posting the notice authorized by Section 30.06 of the Penal Code;
* A federally approved facility security plan under either the Maritime Transportation Security Act or the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards is not federal law that would preempt Section 52.061 of the Labor Code; and
* No statute for which we are aware provides a specific remedy for employees whose employers violate Section 52.061. And the state legislature has not authorized this office or any other state agency to take corrective action. Despite the lack of a statutory remedy, an aggrieved employee may, depending on the circumstances, have the ability to sue an offending employer under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

We applaud and thank General Abbott for interpreting the law and its application in the manner the state legislature intended, and for upholding the rights of hard-working Texans to protect themselves in these circumstances.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

Practical effect is all in the last part where he basically says if you get fired there is no
statutory remedy, and if you become an aggrieved employee (e.g., been fired for having
a gun in the car) you "may" be able to sue. "May" is a big wiggle word. Buyer beware.

[JoeyJojoJr]

That last part stands out to me as well. As a Texan I am very happy about how supportive our state govt has been with regards to concealed carry. If I found myself as an employee of such a business I think I would just follow the old maxim "Always carry; never tell."

[d2jlking]

Hopyard - you make good points but in my estimation it at least offers some legal ground. He couldve levied an opinion that completely upheld the employers policies. He didn't so it's a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

[BadHabit]

A big step in the right direction as far as I am concerned.

[Hopyard]

Hopyard - you make good points but in my estimation it at least offers some legal ground. He couldve levied an opinion that completely upheld the employers policies. He didn't so it's a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

The part that is a step in the right direction is the limitation on use of the 30.06 sign.

But nothing he said actually impacts what we argued about in an earlier thread; the property rights
of employers and their ability to control what occurs on their own private property.

Now, maybe someone will get caught, get fired, and go to court. Maybe the legislature will change
things next time they gather. Meanwhile, unless you are independently wealthy, I wouldn't bet a job
on that opinion.

[oldnfat]

This is exactly my situation. Public parking lot inside gated company property. 40 miles from my home to work. Lots of unarmed highway miles day and night due to this policy of no firearms on company property. Not legal, but I can't afford to test it. There have been occasional vehicle searches using dogs on this public parking lot.

[pscipio03]

Vehicle searches with no probable cause? On what grounds?

[BenGoodLuck]

Vehicle searches with no probable cause? On what grounds?

On the company's grounds! It's private property and no probable cause needed.

[StarPD45]

This is exactly my situation. Public parking lot inside gated company property. 40 miles from my home to work. Lots of unarmed highway miles day and night due to this policy of no firearms on company property. Not legal, but I can't afford to test it. There have been occasional vehicle searches using dogs on this public parking lot.

You say public parking lot. Does that mean that non-employees can also park there? If so, what right would the company have to search a non-employee's vehicle? An interesting scenario.

[Ogre]

Yeah, I agree that companies have a right to say what is allowed on their property. HOWEVER, I also feel that ones vehicle should be considered an extension of their home in respect of castle doctrine. I.E. company can ban carry (cc or oc) but not having it(weapon) in a vehicle.

[Rhcmlc]

God bless Texas