HB681: Employer Parking Lots Bill

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles....welcome to my little world. As you can tell, I'm a regular here. I'm glad to see that you've been treated respectfully and without rancor - unlike the welcome you yourself accorded me on the Texas CHL board.
As to the bill - why wasn't it written (as least the way I read it) in a way that would have covered a personal vehicle as an extension of the home? The way it reads to me, you're attempting to dictate a property owners' conduct within the confines of their property line. I personally wouldn't accept that, no matter the "good intent". Make the vehicle an extension of the home...different story, and one which most property owners could likely have found palatable.
Unless, as is quite possible, I misread the proposed legislation.

Sorry, I don't have a clue who you are, but we have clear rules at TexasCHLforum against personal attacks that are strictly enforced. So I'm certain your description is inaccurate.

The bill was written as it is because the wording is necessary to make it enforceable. There is no statute or constitutional provision that specifies what is legal to have within your home, so it is not possible to write a bill to extend nonexistent provisions to one's car.

Chas.

 

[MR Redneck]

Sorry, I don't have a clue who you are, but we have clear rules at TexasCHLforum against personal attacks that are strictly enforced. So I'm certain your description is inaccurate.

The bill was written as it is because the wording is necessary to make it enforceable. There is no statute or constitutional provision that specifies what is legal to have within your home, so it is not possible to write a bill to extend nonexistent provisions to one's car.

Chas.

Actually there are laws against possessing illegal substances, stolen property, types of porn, imported people, and more that I cant think of. In Texas, guns aint illegal to own or possess in your home or vehicle. I think this is the key to what TR is talking about. With a little logical thought, the most simple minded could understand the difference between a gun law and a property law.
Vehicles are property as well as guns are. Neither has anything to do with what another person owns untill that person decides they dont want it on their property.
I see exactly what TR is saying and agree. If the laws allow a person to carry firearms inside of their vehicle, those firearms should not be illegal no matter where the vehicle is. If this were to influence a bill, I see it changing more than Employee parking lot issue.
Could it be that this bill is worded this way because someone wants to save some subjects of vehicle carry for later. Or could it be that it would allow Texans to legally carry guns in their vehicles while in gun prohibited zones without a CHL?
Oh BTW, it's not personal. Im just gathering my thought from the different opinions I see.

 

[Texas1911]

Alice with TSRA just contacted me looking for witnesses, I can't do it this year anybody else?
Monday 2pm till?

Is that the hearing date / time?

 

[Texas1911]

I see exactly what TR is saying and agree. If the laws allow a person to carry firearms inside of their vehicle, those firearms should not be illegal no matter where the vehicle is. If this were to influence a bill, I see it changing more than Employee parking lot issue.

The guns aren't illegal, that's not the issue here. The issue is removing the ability of employers to enact company policy prohibiting the lawful storage and transport of firearms and ammunition within company grounds, and ultimately using that as a basis for termination of employment or punishment. It's not a possession issue, it's a labor law issue.

Frankly I don't see how the law could be rewritten apart from adding gun parts to the list. Technically the magazine is not a firearm, speed loaders are not a firearm, but they could be prohibited by the employer and they'd still be within the law, and this would destroy the functionality of a majority of firearms. What if you are going duck hunting and have the shotgun broken down? The barrel is not a firearm. What about black powder guns?

Ultimately this is stating that employers do not have the right to prohibit the legal ownership of firearms in a person's motor vehicle within their parking grounds, and as a result cannot use it as a basis for termination without fear of legal recourse.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Sorry, I don't have a clue who you are, but we have clear rules at TexasCHLforum against personal attacks that are strictly enforced. So I'm certain your description is inaccurate.

The bill was written as it is because the wording is necessary to make it enforceable. There is no statute or constitutional provision that specifies what is legal to have within your home, so it is not possible to write a bill to extend nonexistent provisions to one's car.

Chas.

Charles, I have the same user name over there - so you or anyone here can easily go over and see several discussion strings in which the discussion was less than amicable. Your interpretation of respecful and mine likely differ - but I think anyone reading some of those strings will see what I mean.

The bill could have been written in another way IMO, one in which the vehicle became part of the persons property that would therefore not be subject to search for "prohibitted items" - not items illegal in the eyes of the law, but rather items that an employer wouldn't want around, and therefore denying an employee a practical way of defending themselves travelling to/from work. I'm just a layman - not an attorney - but even I can understand the value to an individual to be gained from that type of legislation without affecting the property rights of businesses.

 

[Texas1911]

The bill could have been written in another way IMO, one in which the vehicle became part of the persons property that would therefore not be subject to search for "prohibitted items" - not items illegal in the eyes of the law, but rather items that an employer wouldn't want around, and therefore denying an employee a practical way of defending themselves travelling to/from work.

How would this stop a search on private property by a non law enforcement person? Furthermore, you could not deny such a search without opening yourself up to insubordination, and that would deny you any ability to sue the company for wrongful termination. Your boss is not required to comply with your 1st, 2nd, or 4th amendment rights; only the government is required to do so.

If the company cannot make guns in cars against company policy, then they have no grounds for a search, and because they have no grounds for a search you have rights to sue for wrongful termination should they fire you.

 

[ghostscout]

Its funny that i see joe straus in here. his wife julie called into my store the other day and she bought some things over the phone. Then later had her husband B*ITCH secretary call me and the whole thing put a bad taste in my mouth. now this.

 

[MR Redneck]

How would this stop a search on private property by a non law enforcement person? Furthermore, you could not deny such a search without opening yourself up to insubordination, and that would deny you any ability to sue the company for wrongful termination. Your boss is not required to comply with your 1st, 2nd, or 4th amendment rights; only the government is required to do so.

If the company cannot make guns in cars against company policy, then they have no grounds for a search, and because they have no grounds for a search you have rights to sue for wrongful termination should they fire you.

Thats the exact point Alan. You dont want employers right to search vehicles altered. Theft and illegal drugs are a main issue around here. I really dont know of anyone other than the BS companies who would search for guns.
Its simple, gun are not illegal, your vehicle is your property so therefor it should be legal for you to have your guns inside of your property No Matter Where Your Vehicle Is. Why pick on Employer property rights? If you are allowed to have your vehicle anywhere, then your guns should be legal no matter where you go. This method would end a lot of issue with guns inside of vehicles. Not just employer parking lots. This bill is limited to one place! Why save the other places for later?

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

Actually there are laws against possessing illegal substances, stolen property, types of porn, imported people, and more that I cant think of. In Texas, guns aint illegal to own or possess in your home or vehicle. I think this is the key to what TR is talking about. With a little logical thought, the most simple minded could understand the difference between a gun law and a property law.
Vehicles are property as well as guns are. Neither has anything to do with what another person owns untill that person decides they dont want it on their property.
I see exactly what TR is saying and agree. If the laws allow a person to carry firearms inside of their vehicle, those firearms should not be illegal no matter where the vehicle is. If this were to influence a bill, I see it changing more than Employee parking lot issue.
Could it be that this bill is worded this way because someone wants to save some subjects of vehicle carry for later. Or could it be that it would allow Texans to legally carry guns in their vehicles while in gun prohibited zones without a CHL?
Oh BTW, it's not personal. Im just gathering my thought from the different opinions I see.

I understand what you would like to see in a bill, but it cannot be done because of the way penal statutes are written. Penal Codes do not specify what is legal; they only specific what actions are unlawful. The only time you see a provision in a penal code/statute listing some acts that are lawful is when they are setting forth exceptions to the prohibitions. In other words, the code would essentially be saying "doing X is prohibited, but doing X is lawful under the following circumstances . . ."

We don't write laws stating what people can do, only what they cannot do. So if an act isn't prohibited, it's legal. Therefore, we cannot write or pass a bill that says "what is legal in one's home is legal in their car" because we can't write statutes that way. The only way to prevent employers from firing employees for having a gun locked in their cars (also private property) is to write a bill that says just that.

Again, I understand what you want, but we legally cannot get there.

Chas.

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, I have the same user name over there - so you or anyone here can easily go over and see several discussion strings in which the discussion was less than amicable. Your interpretation of respecful and mine likely differ - but I think anyone reading some of those strings will see what I mean.

I've been a member here at Texasguntalk since it began in 2008, but I rarely get time to stop by because of my law practice, NRA work, legislative work, and running the TexasCHL.com. I posted information here that is critical to passing the employer parking lot bill and to let folks know what is going on in Austin, not to spar with you.

I'm sorry if you felt put-upon at TexasCHLforum.com and as a courtesy to you, I did a search on your user name and found your posts on the thread titled Hatfields v. McCoys All Over Again. I wanted to see if the Moderators had missed a personal attack against you and to offer an apology to you if they/we did. This clearly was not the case. Not a single post by a TexasCHLforum Member was a personal attack, nor were they disrespectful, although you made such a claim. However, you later made a post stating that nothing anyone said insulted you and that you just wanted to get something off your chest. I've quoted your post below.

Again, you are welcome at TexasCHLforum.com and our rules against personal attacks will be strictly enforced. I'll be candid here, the only reason I've posted this response is because the Members and Moderators at TexasCHLforum deserve better than to be falsely accused on other forums.

Chas.

Re: OC v. CC -- Hatfields v. McCoys All Over Again

by TexasRedneck » Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:19 am
I don't see your reasons as selfish - not a bit. In my mind, CC and PL are issues that affect not only a greater number of folks, but completely restrict their ability to defend themselves.

I keep tryin' ta tell ya'll that I ain't an OCDO type...

Sure, I'd love to see the OC yesterday - but I've been around enough politics to understand that there are priorities and ways to do things. The LSCDL folks are, imo, kinda victims of their own idea - it looks good, it's something to aspire to - unfortunately, others that have come before left a bad taste in folks' mouths. I get that - really do. I think folks now are realizing that they are NOT lock-stepped w/OCDO, but are instead just who they say they are - some Texans with an idea and a goal. They aren't politicians or even all that familiar with the political arena, so when they say/do something "dumb", it's simply an honest gaffe - and they're ready and willing to listen to other input/ideas. I know that because I've had some pretty long discussions with their 3 key leaders, and all they want to do is figure out how to bring OC to Texas.

Anyways, I'm feelin' better after my little diatribe the other day. Nothing any one person said or did set it off - those of you that felt that it did and felt you needed to somehow apologize, it wasn't you. It just kinda got to the point that all the little things had kinda built up, and I figured that I either needed to let off some steam or it was gonna get really ugly.

Like I said - at first, I thought "Wow - what a buncha jerks!" Then I read up on some of the history BEHIND the feelings being expressed, and I understood it. Then it became a point of kinda feeling like I was getting painted w/the same brush, and I needed to somehow get across that I was NOT some carpet-bagger comin' in to stir stuff up.

I'm a Texas boy, guys - honest. If you are familiar w/St. Joseph's church in DT San Antonio - my Great-Grandfather donated the land it sits on. My grandparents were shootin' buddies w/the Toepperwein's - some of the records my Grandmother set at the SA Gun Club still stand, and I've got the Model 97 she used to set 'em with. I love this state and country - I try hard to do the Right Thing, but like anyone else I've got my "hot buttons".

Thanks for readin' this drivel....just wanted to try and set the record straight.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Charles, you missed the post exchange we had w/regards to membership, and your claim that there was no call by TSRA members to propose OC in this state. I AM A TSRA MEMBER, and a VOTING NRA PATRON MEMBER who just got his ballot in today. I will be voting, sir - and while I'm generally pretty forgiving, I also have a pretty long memory.

Shall I go back an post the message string that got you so insulted and worked up over on the CHL board over here? You might remember it, it's the one where you got all offended that I posted it to offset comments you made w/regards to discussions you and I had had.

On second thought, no, I won't - because that doesn't serve anything here. Suffice it to say that it is my opinion that you have a unique ability to imply a lot, but stopping short of actually saying something so that you can claim "you didn't say it." I'm kinda different....I'll speak my mind. And my mind says that I'm so very done with you.....

 

[MR Redneck]

TexasCHLforum.com • View topic - OC v. CC -- Hatfields v. McCoys All Over Again
After reading this entire post I felt like it was actually stated to create negativity toward activist of Open Carry.
People have goals and opinions. It doesnt matter how those opinions are expressed, all that matters is the goal behind them.
Listening to what people want is more important than creating an entire website topic to "Blame them" for the lack of Pro Gun legislation support.

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, you missed the post exchange we had w/regards to membership, and your claim that there was no call by TSRA members to propose OC in this state. I AM A TSRA MEMBER, and a VOTING NRA PATRON MEMBER who just got his ballot in today. I will be voting, sir - and while I'm generally pretty forgiving, I also have a pretty long memory.

Shall I go back an post the message string that got you so insulted and worked up over on the CHL board over here? You might remember it, it's the one where you got all offended that I posted it to offset comments you made w/regards to discussions you and I had had.

On second thought, no, I won't - because that doesn't serve anything here. Suffice it to say that it is my opinion that you have a unique ability to imply a lot, but stopping short of actually saying something so that you can claim "you didn't say it." I'm kinda different....I'll speak my mind. And my mind says that I'm so very done with you.....

Sorry, you're right I missed that thread. That's the one where you wanted me to turn everything I have over to a brand new organization run by people I don't know and know nothing about. The same thread where you seem to say because of my 30 years of working on Second Amendment issues and legislation, I was supposed to support everyone and everything so long as they claim to be pro-gun.

As you said earlier, if anyone is interested, they can read the thread and judge for themselves. TexasCHLforum.com • View topic - TX rep to author OC

May I suggest that you get past personal issues and let's focus on the getting the employer parking lot bill passed -- the reason this thread was started. Neither your feelings nor mine are as important as passing legislation to prevent employers from disarming tens of thousands of law-abiding Texans. Respond if you will, but I'm not going to continue with this diversion when we have so much to accomplish before the Legislature gets bogged down with the budget and redistricting.

Chas.

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

TexasCHLforum.com • View topic - OC v. CC -- Hatfields v. McCoys All Over Again
After reading this entire post I felt like it was actually stated to create negativity toward activist of Open Carry.
People have goals and opinions. It doesnt matter how those opinions are expressed, all that matters is the goal behind them.
Listening to what people want is more important than creating an entire website topic to "Blame them" for the lack of Pro Gun legislation support.

And Texasredneck wonders why I wouldn't blindly sign-on with Lonestarcdl.org as a free consultant. This is why.

Chas.

 

[MR Redneck]

And Texasredneck wonders why I wouldn't blindly sign-on with Lonestarcdl.org as a free consultant. This is why.

Chas.

That's TR job over there. Simply because the folks think he's great.
Me, I know why you wont help. Remember that phone call you gave me explaining how you have all the open carry groundwork but it would cost us for you to represent it?
Sorry Mr., but things are moving along just fine without that kind of help.

 

[SC-Texas]

ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT! Everyone STOP!

TSRA chose to not support open carry and yes . . that pisses me off as a member.

But the organization MUST chose its fights and today's fight is the PARKING LOT BILL.

I will start giving timeouts if this goes off topic with personal bickering again and no one is safe and no one is sacred.

If Charles wants to be paid for being a 2nd amendment lobbyist . . good on him!

Its a free country last I checked and successful lobbyists tend to make lots of money in Washington.

If TR and others want to get offended because Charles told tham that he wasn't going to work for free . . . again, its a free country!

Hell, I have clients that get offended everyday when I tell them what the retainer for their case is going to be!

Get over it.

And I don't give a damn who started it I am stopping it unless Texas 1911 countermands me order.

Now . . . back to our regularly scheduled programming!

How do we get this out of committee?

 

[Texasjack]

ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT! Everyone STOP!

....................... today's fight is the PARKING LOT BILL........

How do we get this out of committee?

Thank you, thank you, thank you for stepping in!

Let's focus on this bill and get it passed!!!!!!!!

 

[TheDan]

I really hope HB681 gets passed, but I wish it was broader. It shouldn't matter if it's guns or pink underwear that an employer bans, it shouldn't be grounds for termination if it's kept in a personal vehicle.

 

[Matthew2000tx]

I e-mailed the following to committee members and my district rep.



"I hope this letter finds you well. I’m writing you today to ask that you support HB681. HB681 will support the rights of law-abiding citizens who exercise his/her Second Amendment rights by legally carrying a firearm in his/her vehicle.
Many of these people, such as myself and my wife, choose to make use of our second amendment rights as law-abiding citizens and we want to work within the laws or our great state and follow the rules of our employers as well. Many businesses forbid employees from carrying concealed at work and that is their right to do so. Normally, when a concealed carry permit holder is faced with a .306 sign, he or she will secure the weapon in the safety of a motor vehicle. My personal vehicles have a gun safe bolted to the floor for this purpose.
I believe that businesses should not be able to limit the ability to carry a gun within the confines of the employee’s personal vehicle. HB 681 would limit the rights of businesses imposing such restrictions on its employees.
Please consider supporting HR 681 because it allows greater freedom for many Texas residences who are law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and others. It also prevents the need to remove firearms from a vehicle based on where that vehicle is located. Thousands of people in Texas hold concealed carry permits and thousands more don’t but legally carry a weapon in their vehicle for protection."

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

You could also make the case that businesses feel hamstrung right now because of the perceived risks and outside pressures. A law would allow them to "comply" without taking on additional liability or flack from "corporate" or external groups they have to be sensitive to.