More good news for Texans. Gov Perry signs... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : More good news for Texans. Gov Perry signs...


Shinesintx
06-21-2011, 21:09
More good news for Texans. Governor Perry signs the Hegar sponsored bill that will allow guns in vehicles at the workplace. Does not affect me, but I am happy for my fellow Texans. Employers should not be able to restrict our rights. Maybe he is making a presidential run.

http://www.fortbendnow.com/2011/06/20/52498

(http://www.fortbendnow.com/2011/06/20/52498)

txinvestigator
06-21-2011, 21:53
While I agree with this law, how about the right of a private business owner to control his property. Your "rights" apply to the government and you, not private businesses. In fact, this law keeps employers, in specific circumstances, from taking adverse employment action against you for having a firearm in your vehicle There are exceptions.

AND, this law does not keep an employer from firing you should you carry outside of your vehicle on his/her property.

Everyone should read the law for specifics.

Also passed were bills allowing the carry of handguns in boats without a CHL and allowing foster parents to have legally possessed ffirearms in vehicles with foster kids.

Some good things for us

NMPOPS
06-21-2011, 22:02
In many states your car is recognized as an extension of your home and your employer should not be able to control what is inside your car, regardless if yyour employer is a public employer or a private company.

It's a good change!

swinokur
06-22-2011, 05:37
A car is your private property, not your employer's

beforeobamabans
06-22-2011, 06:05
We had a similar law put in place in Indiana a year ago. Not one workplace shooting despite all the handwringing by the liberals. I cannot carry at work and my employer actively fought this law. I feel much better about returning home to an empty house given all the home invasions lately. This is good law and doesn't impact personal property rights.

bithabus
06-22-2011, 06:12
While I agree with this law, how about the right of a private business owner to control his property. Your "rights" apply to the government and you, not private businesses. In fact, this law keeps employers, in specific circumstances, from taking adverse employment action against you for having a firearm in your vehicle



This is true. But, we have to remember that by prohibiting a person from leaving a weapon in their vehicle the business has effectively disarmed that person for the entire day. I think this bill is a good compromise between maintaining the rights of employers and property owners, and the right of citizens to basic self-defense. Is it a slippery slope? Time will tell I guess.

HerrGlock
06-22-2011, 06:13
While I agree with this law, how about the right of a private business owner to control his property. Your "rights" apply to the government and you, not private businesses. In fact, this law keeps employers, in specific circumstances, from taking adverse employment action against you for having a firearm in your vehicle There are exceptions.


If I'm not mistaken your auto is an extension of your home in TX. As long as your firearm doesn't leave your auto, you can consider it something akin to a consulate or embassy. Yeah, it's surrounded by another country but within the confines of the building it's considered the other country's soil and is governed by the other country.

Even within that there's room for things like obscene material that can be viewed by external sources and other items that affect outside the area.

hockeyrcks9901
06-22-2011, 06:20
Good law. A similar thing passed here in Florida not too long ago.

barstoolguru
06-22-2011, 07:52
it is yet to be seen if this is a good thing or bad. I am all for gun rights but what is a person has a bad day and walks out and gets his gun to "settle the score" or gets fired and goes nuts. giving them faster access to a firearm in the heat of a moment might not be a good thing

Quote: Maybe he is making a presidential run.....

he is going for it, he is smart and just teasing people to get them behind him.


Quote: If I'm not mistaken your auto is an extension of your home in TX. As long as your firearm doesn't leave your auto, you can consider it something akin to a consulate or embassy. Yeah, it's surrounded by another country but within the confines of the building it's considered the other country's soil and is governed by the other country.

texas pc.ss.46.035 the law defines "premises" meaning a building or 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..... anotherwards you can carry up to but not in a build but not threw a doorway to enter a build when posted or otherwise offlimits by law

Gunshine
06-22-2011, 08:11
Didn't this gov. introduce income tax to the state. A friend I spoke to indicated he did and was pretty unhappy.

J_Rico
06-22-2011, 08:17
it is yet to be seen if this is a good thing or bad. I am all for gun rights but what is a person has a bad day and walks out and gets his gun to "settle the score" or gets fired and goes nuts. giving them faster access to a firearm in the heat of a moment might not be a good thing


Following this argument, no one should carry a firearm. What if that CC guy has a bad day?

Having faster access to a firearm is pretty much the point of gun rights.

Based upon this post I would say you are not all for gun rights.

dregotglock
06-22-2011, 08:44
I for one am glad that this has been addressed. Disarming me during rush hour traffic to and from work is not a very comfortable feeling. Thank God I have worked for large financial institutions that were friendly to Texas gun holders.

Texans have to pass state and federal background checks, in addition to taking a mandatory minimum of a 10 hour training course/ with firearm qualification course to be able to obtain a chl permit. It is not as though our permits are just handed out to everyone who applies.

stopatrain
06-22-2011, 08:51
Thank you Governor Perry!

HerrGlock
06-22-2011, 08:55
it is yet to be seen if this is a good thing or bad. I am all for gun rights but what is a person has a bad day and walks out and gets his gun to "settle the score" or gets fired and goes nuts. giving them faster access to a firearm in the heat of a moment might not be a good thing

texas pc.ss.46.035 the law defines "premises" meaning a building or 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..... anotherwards you can carry up to but not in a build but not threw a doorway to enter a build when posted or otherwise offlimits by law

You do realize the more you post this stuff the less people tend to listen to what you're saying, right?



Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

So, as I was saying, in TX your car is considered an extension of your home, effectively.

cowboy1964
06-22-2011, 09:03
A car is your private property, not your employer's

Your person is "private property" too. Why can't that same argument be used to prevent the employer from prohibiting CCW?

The fact is you're on THEIR private property, whether in your vehicle or not.

HerrGlock
06-22-2011, 09:11
Your person is "private property" too. Why can't that same argument be used to prevent the employer from prohibiting CCW?

The fact is you're on THEIR private property, whether in your vehicle or not.

Because your person isn't specifically mentioned in the unlawful carrying of weapons statute. Your auto is. This law just reinforces that idea.

cowboy1964
06-22-2011, 09:15
Didn't this gov. introduce income tax to the state. A friend I spoke to indicated he did and was pretty unhappy.

No, Texas still has no state personal income tax.

datnvan
06-22-2011, 09:33
anyone know if this affects government property? i work at the va hospital and campus police has specifically stated that any weapon is not allowed in your car on property. i come home late and while i only live 1 mile away, i like to stop by a late nite drive thru for dinner but usually go home first and get my ccw. to the guy uncomfortable with employees carrying (in car or on person), do you have a chl and carry daily?

barstoolguru
06-22-2011, 09:43
You do realize the more you post this stuff the less people tend to listen to what you're saying, right?


Look I never said it was wrong all I said is I hope it has a good outcome lord knows we as gun owners need all we can get. I am sure there was a lot of thought went into this I for one see a lot more guns on the street with car break inn’s at places of work. What would be a better idea is to allow people to carry in and give them a secure place to lock them up so if something happens there is can be cooling off period. lic people are not the problem, you don't need a lic to carry a gun in your car in Texas, anyone can and that kind of defeats the chl background check to weed out the bad ones.

And what’s wrong with a difference of option, every coin has two sides



So, as I was saying, in TX your car is considered an extension of your home, effectively.



Hopefully like at home they will give the firearm some kind of locking devise to disable it if it's stolen

bithabus
06-22-2011, 10:02
Because your person isn't specifically mentioned in the unlawful carrying of weapons statute. Your auto is. This law just reinforces that idea.

Your vehicle is not "an extension of your home". That is an internet myth. It's true that a vehicle you own or control was added to 46.02 but there are many situations when being in your residence gives you rights you do not have in your vehicle.

bithabus
06-22-2011, 10:04
Didn't this gov. introduce income tax to the state. A friend I spoke to indicated he did and was pretty unhappy.
Absolutely not. There is a Democratic State Rep from Ft Worth who usually files a State income Tax bill but it goes nowhere.

bithabus
06-22-2011, 10:07
anyone know if this affects government property? i work at the va hospital and campus police has specifically stated that any weapon is not allowed in your car on property. i come home late and while i only live 1 mile away, i like to stop by a late nite drive thru for dinner but usually go home first and get my ccw. to the guy uncomfortable with employees carrying (in car or on person), do you have a chl and carry daily?
You would not be breaking any laws by having a handgun concealed in your car.

liberty addict
06-22-2011, 10:15
it is yet to be seen if this is a good thing or bad. I am all for gun rights but what is a person has a bad day and walks out and gets his gun to "settle the score" or gets fired and goes nuts. giving them faster access to a firearm in the heat of a moment might not be a good thing



You are concerned that someone with a CHL might have a bad day and use his/her gun to settle a score or take out an employer? Valid, but the stuff you are speaking of is quite illegal. Granted, a CHL might do them, but so can anyone without a CHL. If someone wants "fast access to a firearm", they can do that just fine without a CHL. The vast majority of those with a handgun license are law-abiding citizens who just want to be able to protect themselves (my opinion). The state grants you a license, not a gun.

barstoolguru
06-22-2011, 11:03
You are concerned that someone with a CHL might have a bad day and use his/her gun to settle a score or take out an employer? Valid, but the stuff you are speaking of is quite illegal. Granted, a CHL might do them, but so can anyone without a CHL. If someone wants "fast access to a firearm", they can do that just fine without a CHL. The vast majority of those with a handgun license are law-abiding citizens who just want to be able to protect themselves (my opinion). The state grants you a license, not a gun.

You have to read everything I wrote, the person with a chl can go off as fast as anyone else but the chances are a greatly reduced with a healthy dose of reality from the chl classes. People that take the time to do a class and a background check are more stable for the most part and understand outcome with a greater respect. My big concern is that ANYONE can carry a gun in a vehicle WITHOUT a lic and with the new law can take it to work. Only time will tell if this is a good thing I am just wondering who will pay the price for this new freedom!

Gunshine
06-22-2011, 11:07
Absolutely not. There is a Democratic State Rep from Ft Worth who usually files a State income Tax bill but it goes nowhere.

Thanks bit and cowboy for your response. I knew it was a bit off topic and didn't want to sidetrack the thread. I spoke to a friend this past week end (a Texas resident) and he mentioned it. Hadn't read anything about it.

Its good to know there's another State with no State Tax and is gun friendly.:cool:

HerrGlock
06-22-2011, 11:57
You have to read everything I wrote, the person with a chl can go off as fast as anyone else but the chances are a greatly reduced with a healthy dose of reality from the chl classes. People that take the time to do a class and a background check are more stable for the most part and understand outcome with a greater respect. My big concern is that ANYONE can carry a gun in a vehicle WITHOUT a lic and with the new law can take it to work. Only time will tell if this is a good thing I am just wondering who will pay the price for this new freedom!

Vermont has never had a training requirement nor a permit required. Alaska has not required one since 2003. Arizona and Montana have gone that route as well. Alabama, Pennsylvania and Washington have had concealed carry without training for about 30 years. Quite a few states have open carry without any requirements at all and most of those include 18, 19, and 20 year olds in the allowing of carrying. How long do you propose waiting before you realize you've been listening to too many Brady Campaign press releases?

blackjack
06-22-2011, 12:12
Vermont has never had a training requirement nor a permit required. Alaska has not required one since 2003. Arizona and Montana have gone that route as well. Alabama, Pennsylvania and Washington have had concealed carry without training for about 30 years. Quite a few states have open carry without any requirements at all and most of those include 18, 19, and 20 year olds in the allowing of carrying. How long do you propose waiting before you realize you've been listening to too many Brady Campaign press releases?

Me likey!!!:goodpost:

G21FAN
06-22-2011, 12:12
Following this argument, no one should carry a firearm. What if that CC guy has a bad day?

Having faster access to a firearm is pretty much the point of gun rights.

Based upon this post I would say you are not all for gun rights.

I agree. Civil Rights trump Private Property Rights IMO.

kensteele
06-22-2011, 16:00
I agree. Civil Rights trump Private Property Rights IMO.

Disagree.

But I also disagree that private property rights trump civil rights.

I think they can effectively work together to protect everyone's rights, both employer and employee.

What I don't like is the idea that "it's my property my rules." That sort of thinking no longer works it today's American society. Adapt willingly or the government (the people) will adapt you (unwillingly if need be).

aeroengr
06-23-2011, 01:14
This is great to hear. While your car might be considered an extension of your home, employers can still currently set rules to ban you from having a firearm in your car while at work (mine does). This may not be unlawful, but you can still get fired if caught. Now that won't be the case!

Quoted post deleted for rules violation

That law did not fully pass this year, maybe next year.

By the way, you just publicly admitted to committing a felony (while in a campus building). I'd be careful about what you say on an open forum.

MadMonkey
06-23-2011, 01:17
It says in our employee handbook that we're not allowed to have firearms in our vehicles. It came up when I was filling out my paperwork since I handed the HR lady my DL and CHL for ID.

I mentioned (this was a few months ago) that I was expecting parking lot carry to pass and explained it to her, and she said "Well, I guess we'll have to update the handbook!". She also said that leaving it in my car was fine even with the statement in the handbook :rofl:

I love Texas.

Tailhunter
06-23-2011, 17:53
What I don't like is the idea that "it's my property my rules." That sort of thinking no longer works it today's American society. Adapt willingly or the government (the people) will adapt you (unwillingly if need be).

do you own any property?

kensteele
06-23-2011, 20:46
do you own any property?

Of course I do, chattel and real (residential) property. But not any property or business that I get permission from the state to operate and open up to the public with a license or employ other people.

So there are a bazillion of us and we tell YOU how it's gonna be, not the other way around. WE pass the laws for the business owners; the business owners role is to obey the state laws. I don't want to hear another silly analogy about drunks camping out in my home driveway or nuns chanting religious songs in my living room. Or teenagers playing hackysack in the company parking lot or skateboarding thru the mall. Those analogies sound exactly like the lines you hear from the Bradys about guns.

If I owned a bar and the government told me I cannot allow my patrons to smoke, would I cry and biatch and moan....of course. If the state told me I have to close my doors at midnite, I wouldn't like that either. If the government told me I had to allow blacks to eat at my lunch counter, guess what? I HAVE to like that because the law tells me I either have to like it or suffer the consequences. So I understand the issue. My short answer (at this point) is too bad, go to court if you don't like it. Believe me, when the law forced hotels to accommodate hispanics, the hotel owners didn't like it either and they fought it like a pack of wild dogs. They lost.

I'm waiting for our day, it's coming soon. I hear TX has already begun.

aeroengr
06-24-2011, 04:56
Quoted post deleted for rules violation

Yes, carrying a concealed handgun in a building on a college campus in Texas is a felony, one he just admitted to repeatedly doing. If he continues to do so, who said anything about him getting prosecuted for merely posting on a forum that he did so? I certainly didn't. Posting online that your breaking the law is never a wise move, this much should be obvious.

Wrong, this board is public. It may be privately managed and owned, but anything that is said on it it accessible for the public to read, and without even creating a username to say the least.

By the way, why did you add in that last sentence when you quoted me?

eracer
06-24-2011, 06:07
While I agree with this law, how about the right of a private business owner to control his property. Your "rights" apply to the government and you, not private businesses. In fact, this law keeps employers, in specific circumstances, from taking adverse employment action against you for having a firearm in your vehicle There are exceptions.

AND, this law does not keep an employer from firing you should you carry outside of your vehicle on his/her property.

Everyone should read the law for specifics.

Also passed were bills allowing the carry of handguns in boats without a CHL and allowing foster parents to have legally possessed ffirearms in vehicles with foster kids.

Some good things for usThe two bolded sentences explain everything. My car is my property - an extension of my castle. Once I take anything out of the car and step onto my employer's parking lot, it is on his or her property.

My employer can ban my car from the lot (although that might create a whole other set of problems) but he can't tell me what I can and can't keep in my car, as long as the law does not specifically prohibit it.

Good job, Texas.

barstoolguru
06-24-2011, 07:06
Quoted post deleted for rules violation

These boards are monitored by the FBI and key words are targeted. When they pop up on the radar screen they are stored in a memory bank and coded. Things about the president, assassinations, bomb, so on and so forth…….. Yes; he did perjurer himself in omitting a crime. Will they seek him out, I doubt it. What will happen is if he has to use the firearm in defense it can be brought up in a court of law and used against him because he posted it willingly

hockeyrcks9901
06-24-2011, 08:07
These boards are monitored by the FBI and key words are targeted. When they pop up on the radar screen they are stored in a memory bank and coded. Things about the president, assassinations, bomb, so on and so forth…….. Yes; he did perjurer himself in omitting a crime. Will they seek him out, I doubt it. What will happen is if he has to use the firearm in defense it can be brought up in a court of law and used against him because he posted it willingly

I seriously doubt that forums are monitored and stored to databases like that. Do you realize the amount of data you are talking about? Just targeting key words, and then storing the page would take up an unbelievable amount of hard drive space. They can't just store a link to the page, they would have to store the entire page in case it changes.

Now, I could believe that the boards are monitored and sent to a person to review the information and if it deemed dangerous enough, then it being placed in a server. But, I don't think the college student carrying a self defense handgun to campus is on the top of the "flagged" list.

RussP
06-24-2011, 08:08
Folks, advocating, admitting to, condoning, suggesting, implying acceptability of illegal activity is a violation of GT Rule #1.

Don't do it!

southern118
06-24-2011, 11:43
You would not be breaking any laws by having a handgun concealed in your car.

if you are goign onto govt property it is against US Code/Law to carry onto that property. State law can not trump the US law. so you would not be allowed to carry onto the parking lot of the VA

bithabus
06-27-2011, 14:32
if you are goign onto govt property it is against US Code/Law to carry onto that property. State law can not trump the US law. so you would not be allowed to carry onto the parking lot of the VA

Incorrect.

TITLE 18 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sup_01_18.html) > PART I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.html) > CHAPTER 44 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_44.html) > § 930
Prev (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000929----000-.html) | Next (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000931----000-.html)

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities



(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001111----000-.html), 1112 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001112----000-.html), 1113 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001113----000-.html), and 1117 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001117----000-.html).
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

(e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section: (1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.
(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

southern118
06-27-2011, 20:48
you run into the problem that the parking lot is usually considered part of the facility as it is owned or leased by the federal gov't if that was the case member of the military should be allowed to carry there own handguns in the own POV to base as long as it isnt taken out of the car. it just depends on the place and situation. some VA are on military bases that would also cause more issues.

kensteele
06-27-2011, 22:25
you run into the problem that the parking lot is usually considered part of the facility as it is owned or leased by the federal gov't if that was the case member of the military should be allowed to carry there own handguns in the own POV to base as long as it isnt taken out of the car. it just depends on the place and situation. some VA are on military bases that would also cause more issues.

something tells me a military base follows totally different rules and soldier follows totally different rules than a federal employee when it comes to being on the post or base. nobody trumps the rules of the post commander, right? if the base commander says no personal handguns in POVs on the base, that's pretty much how it's gonna be regardless of local, state, or federal laws (sans the pentagon or higher). I could be wrong.

bithabus
06-27-2011, 22:34
you run into the problem that the parking lot is usually considered part of the facility as it is owned or leased by the federal gov't if that was the case member of the military should be allowed to carry there own handguns in the own POV to base as long as it isnt taken out of the car. it just depends on the place and situation. some VA are on military bases that would also cause more issues.
Parking lot is not part of the facility. See 3 posts above.

Toorop
06-27-2011, 23:41
A car is your private property, not your employer's

A parking lot is also private property. This law is a socialist law forcing government regulation down the throats of companies and private business. It begs the question: "Who is John Galt?"

Toorop
06-27-2011, 23:48
This is true. But, we have to remember that by prohibiting a person from leaving a weapon in their vehicle the business has effectively disarmed that person for the entire day. I think this bill is a good compromise between maintaining the rights of employers and property owners, and the right of citizens to basic self-defense. Is it a slippery slope? Time will tell I guess.
How have they, the business, disarmed you for the entire day? You can go home and re-arm yourself. Or better yet park off of their property. Or just start your own business!

RMD
06-28-2011, 07:54
Good for Texas. We need a similar law here!

bithabus
06-28-2011, 10:01
How have they, the business, disarmed you for the entire day? You can go home and re-arm yourself. Or better yet park off of their property. Or just start your own business!

OK, not "the entire day". But a significant portion of it, in many cases, and much of that time the employee is disarmed he is not on employer property (commute time, lunch, etc..). This is a lesser of two evils issue, for me.

txinvestigator
06-29-2011, 20:05
The two bolded sentences explain everything. My car is my property - an extension of my castle. No, its not. You have restrictions on cary carry without a license you do not have for your castle.

Ruggles
06-29-2011, 20:20
Cannot believe the out of state folks are still knocking a Texas state law.......it's a good law for Texas and Texans if the employers do not like it then can take their company, jobs and tax base elsewhere. I am sure Rick Perry will help them pack.......

Texas is not forcing their laws down anyone's throats. If a company does not like the business laws of Texas then they have the option to not do business in Texas. This law is no different than overtime laws, workplace safety regulations, workplace minimum age requirements etc that sates have for companies to follow if they want to do business within their borders.

God bless Texas :)

kensteele
06-30-2011, 12:22
Cannot believe the out of state folks are still knocking a Texas state law.......it's a good law for Texas and Texans if the employers do not like it then can take their company, jobs and tax base elsewhere. I am sure Rick Perry will help them pack.......

Texas is not forcing their laws down anyone's throats. If a company does not like the business laws of Texas then they have the option to not do business in Texas. This law is no different than overtime laws, workplace safety regulations, workplace minimum age requirements etc that sates have for companies to follow if they want to do business within their borders.

God bless Texas :)

Wow, all those laws. You'd think TX was run by Democrats. Republicans are all about shrinking big government and would never imposes all those restrictions. Between Bush and Perry, why hasn't TX become the model of the Republican state? LOL

BTW, I agree with you completely, don't like the business climate in TX, sell your property and move elsewhere.

swinokur
06-30-2011, 12:28
A third of the jobs created in the entire US are in TX. I don't think anyone is leaving. But a lot of companies are moving to TX.

Good on you TX.

kensteele
06-30-2011, 16:35
A third of the jobs created in the entire US are in TX. I don't think anyone is leaving. But a lot of companies are moving to TX.

Good on you TX.

Interesting (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/24/navarrette.rick.perry.candidate/index.html?hpt=us_mid) take on that.

swinokur
06-30-2011, 16:47
Consider the source..

kensteele
06-30-2011, 18:16
Consider the source..

Agreed. It is just another point of reference. However, the facts will stand on their own, regardless if you read them on CNN, Foxnews, or the National Enquirer.

hockeyrcks9901
07-01-2011, 08:14
A parking lot is also private property. This law is a socialist law forcing government regulation down the throats of companies and private business. It begs the question: "Who is John Galt?"

Is this law violating any other state laws? No. Then it is perfectly legal and if the people of Texas do not like the law, they can vote in Representatives to change the law.

hockeyrcks9901
07-01-2011, 08:18
Interesting (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/24/navarrette.rick.perry.candidate/index.html?hpt=us_mid) take on that.

Seems like he doesn't give any evidence to support his claims...He just says that it could be due to immigration, which he says is taxed labor, and many of us know it is not. He says that it could be due to a few different things, but never offers any evidence of such.

kensteele
07-01-2011, 13:31
Seems like he doesn't give any evidence to support his claims...He just says that it could be due to immigration, which he says is taxed labor, and many of us know it is not. He says that it could be due to a few different things, but never offers any evidence of such.

Yeah you never know for sure. I'm sure it will come up during Perry's run for prez so I guess we'll learn more at that time about how true it is. Until then, TX good luck. Lots of private property haters that don't care for you or your guns...or your money.

Warp
07-01-2011, 15:02
Vermont has never had a training requirement nor a permit required. Alaska has not required one since 2003. Arizona and Montana have gone that route as well. Alabama, Pennsylvania and Washington have had concealed carry without training for about 30 years. Quite a few states have open carry without any requirements at all and most of those include 18, 19, and 20 year olds in the allowing of carrying. How long do you propose waiting before you realize you've been listening to too many Brady Campaign press releases?

Centuries

srprex
07-01-2011, 19:42
[QUOTE=barstoolguru;17529133]it is yet to be seen if this is a good thing or bad. I am all for gun rights but what is a person has a bad day and walks out and gets his gun to "settle the score" or gets fired and goes nuts. giving them faster access to a firearm in the heat of a moment might not be a good thing

My boss told me that is why he has a FA in his desk...because of the many people he has had to lay off....he fears "settle the score" retaliation. Another good reason for those who have permits to carry at the workplace.....a hedge of protection against those who do go "nuts". Safety from disarming all the workers is an illusion.....makes them all vulnerable to anyone who chooses to be a killer.

glocker73
07-01-2011, 19:59
Agreed. It is just another point of reference. However, the facts will stand on their own, regardless if you read them on CNN, Foxnews, or the National Enquirer.

Sounds good, yet so far from reality.............

Jaguar G
07-31-2011, 19:44
Sorry to dig up an old thread, on my first post no less.

I did not know this law had passed, and I cannot wait for 9/1 to arrive. Does anyone have the text of the code this law changed? I would love to email that to my HR department. The current company policy states;

All Weapons Banned. [the company] flatly prohibits employees from carrying or using any weapons, concealed or otherwise, on [company] premises (including, without limitation, buildings, entrances, exits, break areas, parking lots, and surrounding areas), unless specifically authorized by the President and Human Resources. This ban includes keeping or transporting a weapon in any [company] -owned or leased vehicle or in a personal vehicle in a [company] -provided parking area and surrounding areas. Employees are also prohibited from carrying any weapon while on-duty or at any time while engaged in [company] -related business. Prohibited weapons include, but are not limited to, firearms, clubs, explosive devices, knives with blades exceeding 5 ½ inches, switchblades, etc., as defined by Texas Penal Code § 46.01.
It is almost like our little company is owned by a British holding company. :whistling:

Now I don't always abide by this policy, I am a member of the local gun club so I often head straight from work to the range. I also shoot skeet a couple times a month, and sometimes forget my shotgun is in the trunk. But to soon be able to do so without fear of reprimand or termination has made day. Thanks GT! :supergrin:

swinokur
07-31-2011, 20:00
Your person is "private property" too. Why can't that same argument be used to prevent the employer from prohibiting CCW?

The fact is you're on THEIR private property, whether in your vehicle or not.

If you leave the gun in your car, the new law says it's your property. Once the gun comes out of the car, then it's a different story.

beforeobamabans
08-01-2011, 16:11
Now I don't always abide by this policy

Please abide by your company policy. It's not worth getting fired over. Jobs are too hard to come by today and it's going to get worse. Hunker down.

K1tt3n5
08-01-2011, 16:13
Now if only they could do something about this weather.

Jaguar G
08-01-2011, 16:28
Please abide by your company policy. It's not worth getting fired over. Jobs are too hard to come by today and it's going to get worse. Hunker down.

Doubt they could find another fool to take my job. :rofl:

That and the fact that this is small town Texas and probably about 30% of the vehicles in the parking lot have a gun in them. Not once have they ever asked to look in someone's vehicle... to my knowledge.

But yes you are correct; it is going to get worse before it gets better - count on that.

JAG

cfec2008
08-01-2011, 16:32
Congrats. When yall get done with Perry, please send him to Tennessee. Haslam says hes Republican, but...

lanternlad
08-01-2011, 16:39
While I agree with this law, how about the right of a private business owner to control his property. Your "rights" apply to the government and you, not private businesses. In fact, this law keeps employers, in specific circumstances, from taking adverse employment action against you for having a firearm in your vehicle There are exceptions.

AND, this law does not keep an employer from firing you should you carry outside of your vehicle on his/her property.

Everyone should read the law for specifics.

Also passed were bills allowing the carry of handguns in boats without a CHL and allowing foster parents to have legally possessed ffirearms in vehicles with foster kids.

Some good things for us

The law requires those who keep guns in their car at work to have a valid CHL.

Lord
08-01-2011, 17:09
I for one am glad that this has been addressed. Disarming me during rush hour traffic to and from work is not a very comfortable feeling. Thank God I have worked for large financial institutions that were friendly to Texas gun holders.

Texans have to pass state and federal background checks, in addition to taking a mandatory minimum of a 10 hour training course/ with firearm qualification course to be able to obtain a chl permit. It is not as though our permits are just handed out to everyone who applies.

here here... and as I understand it, Texas' requirements for CHL are more stringent than any other states', and as such, TX has reciprocity with more states than any other.

The letter of the law as it is quoted up above doesn't give a building's ownership to the parking lot. it's actually in the law! this introduced law, if I am not mistaken, simply takes the authority away from an employer to enforce "you can't carry" in the parking lot, and thus they cannot hold your job over your head if you do.

To me, this also goes into "don't ask, don't tell" territory. Even if an employer could tell you not to keep it in your car in the parking lot, how will they know if you simply don't tell them it's there?

Aside from that, this is a good law. if you want to keep it out of your building, fine. That means only criminals will have a gun in your business, and if it comes down to that... well you know the rest. but don't tell me I can't keep a gun in MY car when the law says that I can, CHL or not.

Lord
08-01-2011, 17:10
The law requires those who keep guns in their car at work to have a valid CHL.

I don't believe that's true. Proof?

Lord
08-01-2011, 17:13
Sorry to dig up an old thread, on my first post no less.

I did not know this law had passed, and I cannot wait for 9/1 to arrive. Does anyone have the text of the code this law changed? I would love to email that to my HR department. The current company policy states;

It is almost like our little company is owned by a British holding company. :whistling:

Now I don't always abide by this policy, I am a member of the local gun club so I often head straight from work to the range. I also shoot skeet a couple times a month, and sometimes forget my shotgun is in the trunk. But to soon be able to do so without fear of reprimand or termination has made day. Thanks GT! :supergrin:


I believe DPS' website has all the laws published there, and may have the upcoming changes available for you. If not, they will have it current as of 9/1/11

Jaguar G
08-01-2011, 17:26
The law requires those who keep guns in their car at work to have a valid CHL.

I don't believe that's true. Proof?

Looks to me like they cover employees who hold a license, employees who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or employees who lawfully possesses ammunition.

I don't see this restricting to just CHL holders.

Sec.52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO
OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer
may not prohibit an employeewho 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.

IANAL - JAG

Lord
08-01-2011, 18:10
Looks to me like they cover employees who hold a license, employees who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or employees who lawfully possesses ammunition.

I don't see this restricting to just CHL holders.



IANAL - JAG

thanks.

drdriller
08-01-2011, 18:12
I let and encourage my chl employees to have their weapon, even at work.

beforeobamabans
08-02-2011, 03:55
My state enacted a parking lot law a year ago and it's been a non-event as far as any workplace related incidents. It also gives me the peace of mind of knowing I can defend myself when returning home to an empty house or running errands after work, so it's been a plus for me.

Crawford
08-02-2011, 03:57
That is great news for Texans.

dnuggett
08-02-2011, 21:24
The law requires those who keep guns in their car at work to have a valid CHL.

No it does not.

dnuggett
08-02-2011, 21:26
here here... and as I understand it, Texas' requirements for CHL are more stringent than any other states', and as such, TX has reciprocity with more states than any other.


More stringent then some states yes. Less stringent then others.

Warp
08-02-2011, 21:49
More stringent then some states yes. Less stringent then others.


More than most, less than some

CodyBoy
08-04-2011, 23:15
What would the implications be to an employer that does not abide by the law and terminates someone that does have a firearm in the car on company property after Sept 1 ?

Is it a criminal matter or a civil matter?


Thanks

CodyBoy
08-05-2011, 12:43
so no one knows? Or doesn't care?

CodyBoy
08-05-2011, 12:55
While I agree with this law, how about the right of a private business owner to control his property. Your "rights" apply to the government and you, not private businesses. In fact, this law keeps employers, in specific circumstances, from taking adverse employment action against you for having a firearm in your vehicle There are exceptions.

AND, this law does not keep an employer from firing you should you carry outside of your vehicle on his/her property.

Everyone should read the law for specifics.

Also passed were bills allowing the carry of handguns in boats without a CHL and allowing foster parents to have legally possessed ffirearms in vehicles with foster kids.

Some good things for us

Did not see it before about the foster parents / kids. That is great too. We are foster parents and did not like one bit when they said I couldn't carry with the kids in the car.

kensteele
08-05-2011, 18:44
What would the implications be to an employer that does not abide by the law and terminates someone that does have a firearm in the car on company property after Sept 1 ?

Is it a criminal matter or a civil matter?


Thanks

Maybe civil, what does the law say? If you are fired, don't you seek damages or reinstatement?

bithabus
08-08-2011, 18:18
so no one knows? Or doesn't care?
Civil. However, the fired employee has to prove he was fired because he had a gun in the car. If the anti-gun employer is smart about it they can still do what they want.

eracer
08-08-2011, 18:57
Good law. A similar thing passed here in Florida not too long ago.I continue to wonder at the folks who question the 'rightness' of this law. I've argued at length with some of them, and their argument is always the same, and always illogical.

Toorop
08-10-2011, 07:30
I continue to wonder at the folks who question the 'rightness' of this law. I've argued at length with some of them, and their argument is always the same, and always illogical.

I agree. People don't realize how much this destroys property rights.

CodyBoy
08-10-2011, 12:10
I agree. People don't realize how much this destroys property rights.



So you're saying it is ok for my employer to tell me I cannot but to a stranger / customer it is ok for them to enter the parking lot or even the office while CCW?
Thats BS.

Texas law already states that parking lots are not part of the premise.

To me it is just an added feature to tell employers that they have been wrong all along trying to enforce that their parking lot is different from other parking lots.

Toorop
08-11-2011, 02:10
So you're saying it is ok for my employer to tell me I cannot but to a stranger / customer it is ok for them to enter the parking lot or even the office while CCW?
Thats BS.

Texas law already states that parking lots are not part of the premise.

To me it is just an added feature to tell employers that they have been wrong all along trying to enforce that their parking lot is different from other parking lots.

I am not saying that at all and I would love fir you to show me where I did say that at all. I believe that if they want to post their property with proper signage they can if they wish to keep customers from carrying legally. What this law does is infringe on the rights of property owners to control what is on their property.

What characteristics does their parking lot have that make it different then another? If I have a car with offensive bumper stickers and an offensive picture painted on it and I work for you, do you feel you have the right to tell me that I can't park it on your parking lot because you find it offensive? What about if you feel it might drive customers off? Are my first amendment righta able to overrule your property rights? What if I paint my car in chicken blood and it smells horrible but it is because my religion says I must, do you have the right to tell me to not park there because other employees might feel uncomfortable?

NEOH212
08-11-2011, 03:03
Following this argument, no one should carry a firearm. What if that CC guy has a bad day?

Having faster access to a firearm is pretty much the point of gun rights.

Based upon this post I would say you are not all for gun rights.

Good post, good point and I agree totally.

The last time I read the second amendment, it ended with the words, "Shall not be infringed." I don't see anything there that says, "Except for on private property." Or for that mater, anything in the second amendment that allows for any law to be made to restrict carry anywhere. I challenge anyone to point out to me anywhere in the second amendment, you know, that amendment in the bill of rights that guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms, anything that says otherwise. I guess the liberal interpretation of the second amendment would allow for it. But there again, the liberals are really good at making laws and words mean something other than what they actually do. I guess that's what 10+ years and a Phd from Liberal university law school does for someone. :supergrin:

NEOH212
08-11-2011, 03:11
I for one am glad that this has been addressed. Disarming me during rush hour traffic to and from work is not a very comfortable feeling. Thank God I have worked for large financial institutions that were friendly to Texas gun holders.

Texans have to pass state and federal background checks, in addition to taking a mandatory minimum of a 10 hour training course/ with firearm qualification course to be able to obtain a chl permit. It is not as though our permits are just handed out to everyone who applies.

:thumbsup:

Agree and well put. The idea behind concealed carry is to have a firearm with you at all times, everywhere you go. If laws are put in place that restrict where a lawfully armed citizen can carry, is the state pretty much at that point, guaranteeing your safety in the places that are posted or off limits? If not, they need to pass laws that allows us to carry legally everywhere. Or at least extend to us, the same carry rights that are extended to Law Enforcement officers. I noticed that there are a heck of a lot less restrictions on where they can carry off duty. At least that's the way it is in Ohio. Why are we not granted the same freedom as to where we can carry? We should be.

Lord
08-11-2011, 11:13
I am not saying that at all and I would love fir you to show me where I did say that at all. I believe that if they want to post their property with proper signage they can if they wish to keep customers from carrying legally. What this law does is infringe on the rights of property owners to control what is on their property.


This law does NOT infringe on property owners' rights. This law restricts employers from imposing a rule on employees that they have no right to impose. Many businesses are inside buildings, strips, centers, or other locations where they lease space from a rental company... that rental company also in most cases does not own the property, they simply manage it. For the employer to tell an employee that he/she cannot even keep a gun in their car while parked at work, actually infringes on the rights of the private citizen. In TX it is legal for any citizen, CHL holder or not, to keep a concealed weapon in their vehicle at all times as long as there is no disqualifying reason for them to have one (felon etc). When an employer steps in and says otherwise, that actually undermines a law, and a right, and this new law takes this "self given authority" away from employers not property owners. Additionally, this also applies at schools. The law was changed to exclude the parking lots from effectively being considered school, so one could legally drop and pick up their kids off/from school without actually breaking the law or having to have the kid leave school and walk over to the vehicle etc.

Now, if the parking lot in question was a controlled parking lot, with access gates, security, and clear notice from the property owner himself indicating a 30.06 to include the parking lot, that might be a different case.

You are dead wrong when you say this infringes on property owners' rights.

Glenn E. Meyer
08-11-2011, 11:22
Darn laws that tell restaurants not to poison folks. Those health rules infringe on my property rights. Give me a break.

If you think your business is a castle -supply your own fire and police protection. Why should taxpayers support services for your castle - where you don't want me to be able to protect myself?

CodyBoy
08-11-2011, 11:31
I am not saying that at all and I would love fir you to show me where I did say that at all. I believe that if they want to post their property with proper signage they can if they wish to keep customers from carrying legally. What this law does is infringe on the rights of property owners to control what is on their property.

What characteristics does their parking lot have that make it different then another? If I have a car with offensive bumper stickers and an offensive picture painted on it and I work for you, do you feel you have the right to tell me that I can't park it on your parking lot because you find it offensive? What about if you feel it might drive customers off? Are my first amendment righta able to overrule your property rights? What if I paint my car in chicken blood and it smells horrible but it is because my religion says I must, do you have the right to tell me to not park there because other employees might feel uncomfortable?


No you didnt exactly say that. But a companies policy should not trump state law. If they wanted to truly keep it off their property then they would post a 30.06 sign. If they cant even follow that simple law then yea they forfeited their rights.

CodyBoy
08-11-2011, 11:42
This law does NOT infringe on property owners' rights. This law restricts employers from imposing a rule on employees that they have no right to impose. Many businesses are inside buildings, strips, centers, or other locations where they lease space from a rental company... that rental company also in most cases does not own the property, they simply manage it. For the employer to tell an employee that he/she cannot even keep a gun in their car while parked at work, actually infringes on the rights of the private citizen. In TX it is legal for any citizen, CHL holder or not, to keep a concealed weapon in their vehicle at all times as long as there is no disqualifying reason for them to have one (felon etc). When an employer steps in and says otherwise, that actually undermines a law, and a right, and this new law takes this "self given authority" away from employers not property owners. Additionally, this also applies at schools. The law was changed to exclude the parking lots from effectively being considered school, so one could legally drop and pick up their kids off/from school without actually breaking the law or having to have the kid leave school and walk over to the vehicle etc.

Now, if the parking lot in question was a controlled parking lot, with access gates, security, and clear notice from the property owner himself indicating a 30.06 to include the parking lot, that might be a different case.

You are dead wrong when you say this infringes on property owners' rights.

Excellent post :wavey:

And when/if they post a 30.06 for the parking lot then I'll park in the lot that is not behind the gates. :tongueout: ----> at employers

CodyBoy
08-11-2011, 11:45
I wonder how many employers will post a 30.06 because of the new law?

Personally I believe as an individual and CHL holder you should not only have the right to leave it in the car but should be able to carry while at work.

Come on Texas, lets make it happen!

:wavey:

hockeyrcks9901
08-11-2011, 14:38
I continue to wonder at the folks who question the 'rightness' of this law. I've argued at length with some of them, and their argument is always the same, and always illogical.

I agree. People don't realize how much this destroys property rights.

I know it has been said to Toorop before but I'll say it again because I'm bored...

My car is MY property, not the property of my employers. If my employer bans smoking on the premises I can still smoke in my vehicle. In Texas law, as well as Florida, it is an extension of your home for the purposes of self defense. You do not need a CWP to have a weapon in your car in either State.

Again, my vehicle is my property and an employer cannot create rules that affect me in my car. For example, I have to wear a uniform at my current job, work rules say that I must be in uniform while on company property. However, I do not have to be in uniform while in my vehicle. Only upon exiting the vehicle do I need to be.

Toorop
08-11-2011, 14:51
Good post, good point and I agree totally.

The last time I read the second amendment, it ended with the words, "Shall not be infringed." I don't see anything there that says, "Except for on private property." Or for that mater, anything in the second amendment that allows for any law to be made to restrict carry anywhere. I challenge anyone to point out to me anywhere in the second amendment, you know, that amendment in the bill of rights that guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms, anything that says otherwise. I guess the liberal interpretation of the second amendment would allow for it. But there again, the liberals are really good at making laws and words mean something other than what they actually do. I guess that's what 10+ years and a Phd from Liberal university law school does for someone. :supergrin: So laws that prevent me from holding voodoo ceremonies on your property in the middle of the night against your wishes are not valid because it says Congress shall make no law. Thus my ability to do so is OK as no legislative body can make a law preventing me from doing so?

Warp
08-11-2011, 14:54
I know it has been said to Toorop before but I'll say it again because I'm bored...

My car is MY property, not the property of my employers. If my employer bans smoking on the premises I can still smoke in my vehicle. In Texas law, as well as Florida, it is an extension of your home for the purposes of self defense. You do not need a CWP to have a weapon in your car in either State.

Again, my vehicle is my property and an employer cannot create rules that affect me in my car. For example, I have to wear a uniform at my current job, work rules say that I must be in uniform while on company property. However, I do not have to be in uniform while in my vehicle. Only upon exiting the vehicle do I need to be.

Good post.

Toorop
08-11-2011, 15:01
This law does NOT infringe on property owners' rights. This law restricts employers from imposing a rule on employees that they have no right to impose. Many businesses are inside buildings, strips, centers, or other locations where they lease space from a rental company... that rental company also in most cases does not own the property, they simply manage it. For the employer to tell an employee that he/she cannot even keep a gun in their car while parked at work, actually infringes on the rights of the private citizen. In TX it is legal for any citizen, CHL holder or not, to keep a concealed weapon in their vehicle at all times as long as there is no disqualifying reason for them to have one (felon etc). When an employer steps in and says otherwise, that actually undermines a law, and a right, and this new law takes this "self given authority" away from employers not property owners. Additionally, this also applies at schools. The law was changed to exclude the parking lots from effectively being considered school, so one could legally drop and pick up their kids off/from school without actually breaking the law or having to have the kid leave school and walk over to the vehicle etc.

Now, if the parking lot in question was a controlled parking lot, with access gates, security, and clear notice from the property owner himself indicating a 30.06 to include the parking lot, that might be a different case.

You are dead wrong when you say this infringes on property owners' rights. So the law states that a business has no right to regulate what its employees do at work? That sounds rather Marxist to me and anti-business.

How does the private citizen get their rights infringed upon? When you are hired you agree to follow the rules and thus you lose some of your rights while at work as you agreed to do so in exchange for a paycheck? As far as rental properties and other businesses or strip malls, it is irrelevant since the employee agreed to follow rules in order to obtain a paycheck. The fact that they share parking lots with customers is irrelevant as the business has no control of customers and when they rent the property it is now considered their private property for certain purposes.

I am not sure what law is being undermined prior to the signing of this law as this thread discusses the signing of a law forcing the business to allow guns in their parking lot for employees. Before was there a law that said businesses must allow guns in their parking lots? Please cite it for me as the argument you are making is not logical since it is not obvious to me what law was being undermined prior to this law being signed.

I have no problem allowing people to drop off their kids at public schools but a private school should be free to deny them the ability to bring guns onto their private property.

Toorop
08-11-2011, 15:02
No you didnt exactly say that. But a companies policy should not trump state law. If they wanted to truly keep it off their property then they would post a 30.06 sign. If they cant even follow that simple law then yea they forfeited their rights.
What state law was being trumped?

Toorop
08-11-2011, 15:06
I know it has been said to Toorop before but I'll say it again because I'm bored...

My car is MY property, not the property of my employers. If my employer bans smoking on the premises I can still smoke in my vehicle. In Texas law, as well as Florida, it is an extension of your home for the purposes of self defense. You do not need a CWP to have a weapon in your car in either State.

Again, my vehicle is my property and an employer cannot create rules that affect me in my car. For example, I have to wear a uniform at my current job, work rules say that I must be in uniform while on company property. However, I do not have to be in uniform while in my vehicle. Only upon exiting the vehicle do I need to be.
Yes your car is your property, but are you not free to park it off of their property? If carrying a gun in your vehicle is so important to you, why would you take a job that denies you that ability? Is it not wrong to turn to the state to demand that they allow you to do so?

As far as your smoking analogy that is fine, but I assume ashing your cigarette and dropping the butts on their property is still prohibited?

As far as it being an extension of your home, do you think it is an extension of your home while you are driving it? Or on a public road?

barstoolguru
08-11-2011, 15:13
HE just announced that he is running for president but will not make it official until Saturday

hockeyrcks9901
08-11-2011, 15:25
Yes your car is your property, but are you not free to park it off of their property? If carrying a gun in your vehicle is so important to you, why would you take a job that denies you that ability? Is it not wrong to turn to the state to demand that they allow you to do so?

As far as your smoking analogy that is fine, but I assume ashing your cigarette and dropping the butts on their property is still prohibited?

As far as it being an extension of your home, do you think it is an extension of your home while you are driving it? Or on a public road?

What about blacks being free to work for companies that don't discriminate? Just because the laws do not currently make something illegal does not mean that shouldn't be changed. As is clear in Texas and Florida, the people have elected representatives that changed the laws to protect CCers. Just as people elected representatives to change the laws to protect blacks. Don't bring up that you cannot choose your skin color, I could have easily picked a religious group, and last I checked, you pick your religion.

You would be correct that the cigarette butt and ashes must stay in the car.

Yes it is. I do not need to have a CWP to have a firearm in my vehicle while driving it or on public roads. I can defend myself just as if I were in my bedroom.

Toorop
08-11-2011, 16:54
What about blacks being free to work for companies that don't discriminate? Just because the laws do not currently make something illegal does not mean that shouldn't be changed. As is clear in Texas and Florida, the people have elected representatives that changed the laws to protect CCers. Just as people elected representatives to change the laws to protect blacks. Don't bring up that you cannot choose your skin color, I could have easily picked a religious group, and last I checked, you pick your religion.

You would be correct that the cigarette butt and ashes must stay in the car.

Yes it is. I do not need to have a CWP to have a firearm in my vehicle while driving it or on public roads. I can defend myself just as if I were in my bedroom.

The difference is that black people have no choice whether they are born black or now. You have a choice whether to carry or not.

hockeyrcks9901
08-11-2011, 17:08
The difference is that black people have no choice whether they are born black or now. You have a choice whether to carry or not.

Reread my post and then reply again. Particularly the last sentence of the first paragraph.

eracer
08-11-2011, 17:12
No, its not. You have restrictions on cary carry without a license you do not have for your castle.But not in the parking lot of the company I work for. The Florida legislature made certain of that. That's what we're talking about here. Not courtrooms, or military bases - my car.

Toorop
08-12-2011, 04:55
Reread my post and then reply again. Particularly the last sentence of the first paragraph.

So the fact that you don't pick your skin color is not a factor? As far as religion, well your argument that the state says that is the way it is and that is the way it is could go the same way for religions.

Either way I don't think people truly pick your religion as you are generally raised that way. But there are conversions, either way someones religion has no bearing on others while shopping. If there is a Muslim man in front of you in the supermarket and he is paying for his groceries minding his own business, how is it affecting otehr customers? I think the idea is that the government is trying to prevent discrimination and hatred through legislation.

So you freely admit that the fact you don't pick your skin color is the reason why they cannot discriminate and that they can discriminate against you for choosing to carry a gun. A gun is dangerous and that is why we carry them, at least according to that old story about the Texas ranger and his cocked and locked 1911.

The fact is that customers and employees carrying guns does not always work well when some idiot has a negligent discharge and hurts someone. It has happened before and if a companies employee does it and the company does not forbid it, the company may face legal troubles and a legal battle. Not to mention that the employee may have a ND in the parking lot while disarming and harms another person. The employer should have control of their lots and their property. They are not liable for the actions of people not under contract with them.

Glenn E. Meyer
08-12-2011, 13:51
In the history of humanity, how many have died because of religious disputes between idiots as compared to NDs from concealed carriers. If you want to ban a cause of violence - think about it.

I have no tolerance for the property owner that opens for business the public to deny the right of self-defence. Don't have a public business. Do your trade on the Internet. Or go live on an Island in a Castle and call yourself - Your Majesty.

dnuggett
08-12-2011, 14:09
As far as it being an extension of your home, do you think it is an extension of your home while you are driving it? Or on a public road?

Yes, indeed it is.


As far as restriciting carry on any premises, it's very simple. If you are going to restrict my right and ability to protect myself by making me disarm then you darn well better ensure that no one will be carrying a gun on premise. Either give me the ability to protect myself or take away the reason I need to protect myself.

To do anything less is unethical and immoral.

Henry Kane
08-12-2011, 14:13
The fact is that customers and employees carrying guns does not always work well when some idiot has a negligent discharge and hurts someone.

In the case of AD's, you're right, it doesn't work well. In the case of successful self defense however, legal carry works great! How do occurrence numbers of each compare?
Besides, by the logic you present, personal carry should just be eliminated everywhere. I would not be convinced that the workplace is any more volatile than any number of public locations. I would even venture to say that a professional environment may harbor a heightened sense of preservation among responsible employees.

I have to ask then, is your position founded more on liability or the rights of business owners?


It has happened before and if a companies employee does it and the company does not forbid it, the company may face legal troubles and a legal battle. Not to mention that the employee may have a ND in the parking lot while disarming and harms another person. The employer should have control of their lots and their property. They are not liable for the actions of people not under contract with them.

It seems as though the right granted by law would negate the business owner's liability.

Toorop
08-12-2011, 14:14
Yes, indeed it is.


As far as restriciting carry on any premises, it's very simple. If you are going to restrict my right and ability to protect myself by making me disarm then you darn well better ensure that no one will be carrying a gun on premise. Either give me the ability to protect myself or take away the reason I need to protect myself.

To do anything less is unethical and immoral.

Why not just leave if you dislike the owners policy? Or quit if it is your employer?

Toorop
08-12-2011, 14:16
In the case of AD's, you're right, it doesn't work well. In the case of successful self defense however, legal carry works great! How do occurrence numbers of each compare? Besides, by the logic you present, personal carry should just be eliminated everywhere. I would not be convinced that the workplace is anymore volatile than any number of public locations. I would even venture to say that a professional environment may harbor a heightened sense of preservation among responsible employees.

I have to ask then, is your position founded more on liability or the rights of business owners?



It seems as though the right granted by law would negate the business owner's liability.

How is my position stating that carry should be eliminated everywhere? I just think that on private property it should be up to the owner of the property to decide if guns are allowed on the property. What is wrong with that?

It is founded on the rights of property owners to control their property. If they do it for liability reasons or their own dislike of guns, it is still their choice as it is their property.

Not necessarily.

dnuggett
08-12-2011, 14:18
The fact is that customers and employees carrying guns does not always work well when some idiot has a negligent discharge and hurts someone. It has happened before and if a companies employee does it and the company does not forbid it, the company may face legal troubles and a legal battle. Not to mention that the employee may have a ND in the parking lot while disarming and harms another person. The employer should have control of their lots and their property. They are not liable for the actions of people not under contract with them.

Ok, I'll follow this logic. If a homicidal maniac who doesn't follow the law starts shooting and hurts/maims/kills employees should the employees be able to sue the employer? The employer should have control, right?

dnuggett
08-12-2011, 14:20
Why not just leave if you dislike the owners policy? Or quit if it is your employer?

Run from the problem instead of working to find a solution? Not my style.

Where I see an opportunity to further someone's ability to protect themselves I like to get in the game, not run away or sit on the sidelines.

Warp
08-12-2011, 14:39
Ok, I'll follow this logic. If a homicidal maniac who doesn't follow the law starts shooting and hurts/maims/kills employees should the employees be able to sue the employer? The employer should have control, right?

Yes. You should.

Although if you went eye for an eye the surviving relatives/family of the deceased should be able to kill the employer that caused the employees to be disarmed.

jerzeydevil77
08-12-2011, 14:40
Perry for president!

dnuggett
08-12-2011, 14:40
Yes. You should.

Although if you went eye for an eye the surviving relatives/family of the deceased should be able to kill the employer that caused the employees to be disarmed.

That's one opinion and somehow I knew you'd be saying it. :wavey:

Warp
08-12-2011, 14:49
That's one opinion and somehow I knew you'd be saying it. :wavey:

Just going with the flow.

Henry Kane
08-12-2011, 14:54
How is my position stating that carry should be eliminated everywhere? I just think that on private property it should be up to the owner of the property to decide if guns are allowed on the property. What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with advocating business owner's rights. The debacle lies in where the line is drawn. In this case, the law seems to place the boundary of rights at the threshold of an individual's personal property (his or her vehicle).

It is your "fear of liability" argument that could apply to carry everywhere. Do you not acknowledge the parallels? Have you never heard this same argument presented against general carry rights?

I certainly understand the concern for liability from a business owner's perspective. Still, this liability is diminished by this law.

It is founded on the rights of property owners to control their property. If they do it for liability reasons or their own dislike of guns, it is still their choice as it is their property.

Again, the debate lies on where business owner's rights, and employee's rights meet. I honestly believe that the threshold or boundary of his or her person and personal property is a great place for the line to be laid. This is simply my opinion, which clearly contrasts with yours.

I'm not able to get on board with the absolute rights of one entity (employer) and the irrational removal of rights from another (employee) when the relationship involves commitment from both.

Not necessarily.

But still, probably.

kensteele
08-12-2011, 15:09
Problem where this thread is going is people are forgetting about what is reasonable or not. If you are carrying concealed on private property and the owner cannot tell the difference between you and the unarmed person next to you, I think it is reasonable to allow it.

Can a private property owner post a sign saying no entry to anyone with a juvenile criminal record and then expect the burden to be placed on the customer who walks thru the door to be a trespasser or not? What is a "criminal" record, what about expunged, from another state? What I am talking about is setting conditions for entry that you can't even validate or verify. I can see obscene language on t-shirts, I can smell offensive odors, I can hear obnoxious music, can you see into someone's background?

There's a good reason why the private property owner has to seek permission from the state to open their doors to the public to do business within the state boundaries and the business agrees to follow all state laws, no matter how much they dislike them. If a business decides they don't like the state law, either change the state law or turn in your license, close your doors, and take your business elsewhere where it is wanted. The burden is on the private property owner, not the customer. I will not take my business elsewhere if I am following the law, you take your business elsewhere if you don't like it. Times are changing, better change with it Toorop.

Glenn E. Meyer
08-12-2011, 15:17
Quit if you don't like your employer? Sorry, I don't agree that employers are gods to infringe on their employees.

People need to work and with that the employer should have NO ability to control the employee on issues not directly relevant to the job.

It wasn't that long ago that employers wouldn't hire folks of the wrong religion. Or force you to register for the political party of their choce. So quit - that was during the Depression - so go starve.

Like I said, get an island, build a castle, stop taking protection from the tax payer.