HB681: Employer Parking Lots Bill

[cuate]

I hope the law passes....I spent about 30 years at Bell Helocopter, Hurst, Blue Mound, Carter Field, and Arlington Airport....There was always a pistol in my locked vehicle and they would have fired me if they had known....I never rudely displayed it and never pulled it on a Bell Supervisor or other employee....And if it was to do over again I wouold still do the same !

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

That bill is only for those who have CHL's. Your not required to have a CHL for concealed carry in your vehicle. I guess this bill will still allow employers to terminate employee's if those employee's do not have a license.

I want to clear up this misstatement. Neither HB681 (employer parking lots) nor its Senate companion bill SB321 apply only to CHL's. The bills expressly state that they apply to not only to CHL's, but to employees "who otherwise lawfully possess a firearm." There is an exception that applies to chemical manufacturing plants and refineries; in those locations the law protects only CHLs. We would have preferred not to have that CHL-only location, but it was necessary to pass the bill.

SB321 has passed the Senate and the House, but the House amended it. It now goes to a Senate/House Conference Committee and a compromise "report" will be negotiated. Then, the newly amended bill will go to the House and Senate for an up or down vote, without opportunity to amend it further.

Neither the NRA nor TSRA would have fought so hard, put in so many hours, and used up so much political capital to pass a parking lot bill that applied only to CHLs.

Chas.

Sec. 52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO
OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer
may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully
possesses ammunition from transporting or storing 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.

 

[DrBart2]

I want to clear up this misstatement. Neither HB681 (employer parking lots) nor its Senate companion bill SB321 apply only to CHL's. The bills expressly state that they apply to not only to CHL's, but to employees "who otherwise lawfully possess a firearm." There is an exception that applies to chemical manufacturing plants and refineries; in those locations the law protects only CHLs. We would have preferred not to have that CHL-only location, but it was necessary to pass the bill.

SB321 has passed the Senate and the House, but the House amended it. It now goes to a Senate/House Conference Committee and a compromise "report" will be negotiated. Then, the newly amended bill will go to the House and Senate for an up or down vote, without opportunity to amend it further.

Neither the NRA nor TSRA would have fought so hard, put in so many hours, and used up so much political capital to pass a parking lot bill that applied only to CHLs.

Chas.

Great! Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Bithabus]

I want to clear up this misstatement. Neither HB681 (employer parking lots) nor its Senate companion bill SB321 apply only to CHL's. The bills expressly state that they apply to not only to CHL's, but to employees "who otherwise lawfully possess a firearm." There is an exception that applies to chemical manufacturing plants and refineries; in those locations the law protects only CHLs. We would have preferred not to have that CHL-only location, but it was necessary to pass the bill.

SB321 has passed the Senate and the House, but the House amended it. It now goes to a Senate/House Conference Committee and a compromise "report" will be negotiated. Then, the newly amended bill will go to the House and Senate for an up or down vote, without opportunity to amend it further.

Neither the NRA nor TSRA would have fought so hard, put in so many hours, and used up so much political capital to pass a parking lot bill that applied only to CHLs.

Chas.

So why did the author bother to include the "who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" condition? Inside your vehicle, except in very rare conditions, your CHL is irrelevant. Just clumsy wording?

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

So why did the author bother to include the "who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" condition? Inside your vehicle, except in very rare conditions, your CHL is irrelevant. Just clumsy wording?

There is a reason but it's a story that's better told after the session is over.

Chas.

 

[Bithabus]

There is a reason but it's a story that's better told after the session is over.

Chas.

Fair enough. Look forward to hearing the story.

 

[Renegade]

I can easily see how the lack of an "or" between the CHL condition and the otherwise condition, could be interpreted to mean both conditions are required - you have to be a CHL and you have to be in lawful possession. Author should have put another "or" in there. I hope this does not happen, but we already have seen it happen with the MPA where Harris County DA misinterpreted the wording and intent and we had to fix it in the following session.

 

[Bithabus]

I can easily see how the lack of an "or" between the CHL condition and the otherwise condition, could be interpreted to mean both conditions are required - you have to be a CHL and you have to be in lawful possession. Author should have put another "or" in there. I hope this does not happen, but we already have seen it happen with the MPA where Harris County DA misinterpreted the wording and intent and we had to fix it in the following session.

And, it does open up an interesting possibility- that the employee could have a CHL and be illegally in possession of a firearm and still be protected by the bill. Also later when the conditions are repeated the missing "or" is included:
(b)Section 52.061 does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, from possessing a firearm the employee is otherwise authorized by law to possess on the premises of the employer's business. In this subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code.

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

I can easily see how the lack of an "or" between the CHL condition and the otherwise condition, could be interpreted to mean both conditions are required - you have to be a CHL and you have to be in lawful possession. Author should have put another "or" in there. I hope this does not happen, but we already have seen it happen with the MPA where Harris County DA misinterpreted the wording and intent and we had to fix it in the following session.

I see what you are saying, but the "or" goes before the last qualifying phrase which in this case is "who lawfully possesses ammunition." When the employer parking lot bill passed in Louisiana, ammunition was not mentioned and some employers took the position that they couldn't ban guns in the parking lot, but they could ban ammo. That's why we added the phrase about ammo.

Don't worry about enforcement, the meaning is clear and employers will ignore the provisions of SB321 at their peril. Something tells me there's a lawyer or two that will be happy to jump on 'um.

The problem with Chairman Keel's HB823 in 2005 was the creation of a presumption of traveling gave former Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal the opportunity to argue that presumptions are tools in court and not something to prevent a person's arrest. While technically true, Mr. Rosenthal went far beyond that narrow fact and incorrectly argued that merely being in a car was not sufficient to come within the scope of the new presumption. He also blatantly ignored the new statutory requirement as to how all statutorily created presumptions were to be handled in court.

In the end, we decided the only way to truly achieve unlicensed car-carry was to go directly to Tex. Penal Code §46.02 and amend the statute such that having a handgun in your car (or one under your control) is no longer illegal. (This was HB1815 in 2007) That way we avoid people being arrested and having to assert defenses to prosecutions or prove entitlement to presumptions.

We can rest easy, SB321 will achieve its goals.

Regards,
Chas.

 

[mace]

Thanks for all of the info that you've posted here. I have a couple more questions:

Is this bill still looking good for passing? Looks like as of yesterday, the Senate voted to send it to conference and appoint their conferees. Are they going to get it on Perry's desk in time for this year? Is there anyone that needs some more phone calls for encouragement? ETA: Checked it out online, the Senate's conferees consist of: the two authors of the bill, one as the committee chair, 2 of the co-authors, and a Houston area Democrat with all A-ratings from the NRA. Looks like a good sign to me! Hope the House can keep up their side.

How does the enforcement of this bill work? Are employers liable for civil suits if they have a policy prohibiting weapons in cars? Or only if they actually search someone's car or fire someone for having a weapon? Is it a matter for wrongful termination suits?

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thanks for all of the info that you've posted here. I have a couple more questions:

Is this bill still looking good for passing? Looks like as of yesterday, the Senate voted to send it to conference and appoint their conferees. Are they going to get it on Perry's desk in time for this year? Is there anyone that needs some more phone calls for encouragement? ETA: Checked it out online, the Senate's conferees consist of: the two authors of the bill, one as the committee chair, 2 of the co-authors, and a Houston area Democrat with all A-ratings from the NRA. Looks like a good sign to me! Hope the House can keep up their side.

The parking lot bill should have no problem passing and Gov. Perry will sign it. A lot of people are going to be shocked if something happens and it doesn't pass, including me. As you noted, the Senate conferees couldn't be better for us and I expect a very good panel from the House.

The remedy an employee has for his/her employer violating the soon to be new law is to sue their employer. Rep. Kleinschmidt is an attorney, but he doesn't practice in this area of the law. Unfortunately, after continuous pressure to answer a question about law suits on the floor, he incorrectly stated SB321 doesn't create a cause of action. This will be corrected when the Bill comes out of conference and goes back to the House and Senate for an up or down vote.

Thanks for your support of this very important bill!
Chas.

 

[Fastback Boy]

Hi I'm new here. I have applied for my CHL, all my paper work went in last week so just waiting for its return in plastic form!
So my question is.... I work for a school district but I work in the maint.dept. The operations bldg. is school district property but there is no school on this property, the closest school is about 3 blocks away with a physical address on a different street. Is The Operations Bldg. still covered under State and Fed laws as a "SCHOOL"? and will this parking lot law allow me to leave my firearm in my locked car in the Operations lot?

Thanks,Fastback Boy

 

[Bithabus]

Hi I'm new here. I have applied for my CHL, all my paper work went in last week so just waiting for its return in plastic form!
So my question is.... I work for a school district but I work in the maint.dept. The operations bldg. is school district property but there is no school on this property, the closest school is about 3 blocks away with a physical address on a different street. Is The Operations Bldg. still covered under State and Fed laws as a "SCHOOL"? and will this parking lot law allow me to leave my firearm in my locked car in the Operations lot?

Thanks,Fastback Boy

The protection the bill would provide does not apply to employees of school districts, so your employer could still prohibit you from possessing a gun in your car. You wouldn't be breaking any laws though.

 

[Fastback Boy]

The protection the bill would provide does not apply to employees of school districts, so your employer could still prohibit you from possessing a gun in your car. You wouldn't be breaking any laws though.

Thanks Bithabus,that is what I thought. Not really fair but I guess I will have to live with it for now.......maybe someday!

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

I thought it might help if I provided some additional proof that SB321 (employer parking lots) applies to everyone who lawfully possess a firearm and not just CHL's. (There is a CHL-only provision, but that is limited to chemical manufacturing plants and refineries). This question is being discussed not only here but also on TexasCHLforum.com. Hopefully I can settle this issue once and for all by providing proof that SB321 does cover everyone, not just CHL’s.

As I have stated several times, the language of SB321 is absolutely clear and unequivocal. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say the bill is ambiguous on the issue of who is protected by this Bill. To answer the question, we look to the legislative history of SB321. The first two questions to ask when reviewing and evaluating the legislative history are 1) “was there an amendment addressing the issue in question[?]"; and 2) "was the issue in question discussed during floor debate?” The answer to both of these threshold questions is yes.

Rep. Harold Dutton (D - Houston) offered Amendment 6 that would have amended SB321 so that it would apply only to CHL’s. The Amendment attempted to do so by “striking lines 14 - 16, and substituting ‘from transporting or storing the firearm that the person is licensed to carry and ammunition for that firearm in a locked,’.” Lines 14 - 16 that Rep. Dutton wanted to delete reads "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked," Amendment 6 failed when Rep. Kleinschmidt’s motion to table it prevailed. The failed attempt to amend SB321 so as to narrow it to cover only CHL's is conclusive proof that the Bill is not limited to CHL's and any/every court in the state would so hold.

The hearing in which all of this occurred took place on May 3rd, during the afternoon session. Rep. Dutton first brought up the issue of SB321 applying only to CHL’s at 4:25:03 on the video. He makes it clear that, to his dismay, SB321 applied to everyone who lawfully possesses a firearm, not merely CHL’s. An hour and a half later, Rep. Dutton offered Amendment 6 and discussions on his amendment appear at 6:03:10 until 6:16:35 when his Amendment was tabled.

Here are links to the documents and video proving that SB321 applies to everyone who lawfully possesses firearms, not merely CHL’s.

House Committee Report on SB321 that was up for floor debate on May 3rd and that Rep. Dutton attempted to amend;

Rep. Dutton's Amendment 6 that would have narrowed SB321 to apply only to CHL’s (Pg. 2730 in the Journal; Pg. 48 in the link)

Here is a link to the House Chamber Video. Select the May 3rd afternoon session (1:00pm - 10:38pm) and you will find the discussions I cited at the times set out: 4:25:03 to 4:25:30; and 6:03:10 to 6:16:55.

The bottom line is this; SB321 is not limited to CHL’s. Even if the language of SB321 was ambiguous, which it is not, the legislative history of this Bill is abundantly clear on this issue.

Chas.

 

[Bithabus]

I thought it might help if I provided some additional proof that SB321 (employer parking lots) applies to everyone who lawfully possess a firearm and not just CHL's. (There is a CHL-only provision, but that is limited to chemical manufacturing plants and refineries). This question is being discussed not only here but also on TexasCHLforum.com. Hopefully I can settle this issue once and for all by providing proof that SB321 does cover everyone, not just CHL’s.

As I have stated several times, the language of SB321 is absolutely clear and unequivocal. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say the bill is ambiguous on the issue of who is protected by this Bill. To answer the question, we look to the legislative history of SB321. The first two questions to ask when reviewing and evaluating the legislative history are 1) “was there an amendment addressing the issue in question[?]"; and 2) "was the issue in question discussed during floor debate?” The answer to both of these threshold questions is yes.

Rep. Harold Dutton (D - Houston) offered Amendment 6 that would have amended SB321 so that it would apply only to CHL’s. The Amendment attempted to do so by “striking lines 14 - 16, and substituting ‘from transporting or storing the firearm that the person is licensed to carry and ammunition for that firearm in a locked,’.” Lines 14 - 16 that Rep. Dutton wanted to delete reads "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked," Amendment 6 failed when Rep. Kleinschmidt’s motion to table it prevailed. The failed attempt to amend SB321 is conclusive proof that the Bill is not limited to CHL's and any/every court in the state would so hold.

The hearing in which all of this occurred took place on May 3rd, during the afternoon session. Rep. Dutton first brought up the issue of SB321 applying only to CHL’s at 4:25:03 on the video. He makes it clear that, to his dismay, SB321 applied to everyone who lawfully possesses a firearm, not merely CHL’s. An hour and a half later, Rep. Dutton offered Amendment 6 and discussions on his amendment appear at 6:03:10 until 6:16:35 when his Amendment was tabled.

Here are links to the documents and video proving that SB321 applies to everyone who lawfully possesses firearms, not merely CHL’s.

House Committee Report on SB321 that was up for floor debate on May 3rd;

Rep. Dutton Amendment 6 that would have narrowed SB321 to apply only to CHL’s (Pg. 2730 in the Journal; Pg. 48 in the link)

Here is a link to the House Chamber Video. Select the May 3rd afternoon session (1:00pm - 10:38pm) and you will find the discussions I cited at the times set out: 4:25:03 to 4:25:30; and 6:03:10 to 6:16:55.

The bottom line is this; SB321 is not limited to CHL’s. Even if the language of SB321 was ambiguous, which it is not, the legislative history of this Bill is abundantly clear on this issue.

Chas.

Now that it has passed, can you tell us the story of why the "who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun..." language is included in the list of criteria?

 

[xstuntman]

So has the amended version passed or is it still moving uphill?

 

[Bithabus]

So has the amended version passed or is it still moving uphill?

SB321 passed and was sent to Governor Perry.

 

[xstuntman]

Thanks Bithabus!

 

[LUC3NT]

That's great news! Thanks.