Texas Parking Lot Bill Goes to Floor

[TexasRifleman]

Support SB 231, Texas Commuters Act.

From TSRA:

SB 321 by Senator Glenn Hegar, Jr.(R-Katy) relates to protecting the jobs of hard-working Texans and the legal possession of a firearm in their private locked vehicles when parked on their employer's parking lot.

Beginning Monday, March 14th, SB 321 will be eligible for a vote on the floor of the Texas Senate. All Senator will participate in this vote.

It's time to call your state senator and urge he or she to stand with Senator Hegar and fight off business and industry amendments aimed at carving-out groups of employees and restricting the legal contents of their personal vehicles.

Tell your state senator there is no OSHA excuse, no Homeland Security excuse, and employer notification is not an acceptable addition to Senator Hegar's bill. You won't settle for an alternative "Guns Only" parking lot, or a stripped down version for Concealed Handgun Licensees only. Every Austin lobbyist is hard at work for their employer trying to turn SB 321 into a meal-ticket for them and leave you disarmed on your trip to and from your job. It's time to join other states and pass SB 321.

Contact Info for TX Senators:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/Members.htm

 

[TechBrute]

Thanks for the heads up, TX, manning the phone tomorrow.

 

[dacavasi]

likewise...

 

[henschman]

Is this one of those laws that prevents employers from making rules regarding their own property?

This isn't pro gun rights -- this is anti property rights and anti contractual rights. Your rights do not extend to telling other people what they have to allow on their property, or under what conditions they must contract with other people.

Tell your reps to vote "no" on this one.

 

[joeq]

Don't tell me what I can or can't keep in my locked up vehicle. That is my property. I will not tell them to vote no.

 

[coonhound]

Does your employer have the right to strip-search you? You are on their property. What I have in my car is in my car, stay out.

 

[Gord]

Is this one of those laws that prevents employers from making rules regarding their own property?

I admit to being a complete ignoramus on this particular sort of property-rights issue, so could you give an example of how this might negatively affect the property owner on a level commensurate with that of prohibiting employees from keeping firearms (or anything else) in their own "sovereign" vehicles? Would this affect the employer's liability premiums, etc.?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Is this one of those laws that prevents employers from making rules regarding their own property?

So my employer owns my car now? When did that law pass? The contents of my car are mine. As long as those contents stay in my car why are my employers property rights violated?

 

[walker944]

This proposed law has absolutely nothing to do with the employer or his/her rights! I live 38 miles from my job and currently have to let my employer dictate whether or not I can protect myself to and from work, because of their "no guns on the property" rights. I'm not worried about or concerned with issues arising on the job, but rather to and from work...that's a far greater exposure/risk to me.

 

[GEM]

The business community has explicitly analyzed that they have increased liability for guns at their businesses. The legal literature has several law reviews stating such.

That's all they care about. However, they use the property rights issues as a stalking horse for their evil designs. Then 'rights' folks have a hissy about their property. Well, there are plenty of things you can't do on your property - like be a racist employers. So the property rights folks should take a damn hike when it comes to the rights of self-defense and stop being the pawns of the money grubbing lawyers and employers.

:banghead:

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Is this one of those laws that prevents employers from making rules regarding their own property?

This isn't pro gun rights -- this is anti property rights and anti contractual rights. Your rights do not extend to telling other people what they have to allow on their property, or under what conditions they must contract with other people.

Tell your reps to vote "no" on this one.

First off, your car doesn't belong to them. It is none of the employer's business what lawful items you have locked in your car. They can still say no guns in the building/yard etc.

Second, if you think anyone in big business said "hey, we've got to respect employee rights"......LOL

 

[alsaqr]

Good for TX: i hope the bill passes.

The state of OK was first to have such a law. It has been blessed by the the federal court system. In OK your employer cannot prevent you from having a gun in your locked vehicle in his parking lot.

The OK law came about because Weyerhauser Lumber Co. went on a witch hunt and had employees cars searched.

 

[benEzra]

The OK law came about because Weyerhauser Lumber Co. went on a witch hunt and had employees cars searched.

On the first day of hunting season, no less (if I remember correctly).

 

[nuked0g]

what's the status of this law? I'm very interested in this one. I work at a steel mill and get off at three in the morning most nights, then have to car pool halfway across houston to the hood where my car is parked. This law should pass.

 

[Voland]

Here's a fun little link. I believe this is the correct bill...

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB231

Basically, its no where at this point. Its been filed. I really do wish it would pass though.

V.

 

[henschman]

Of course your vehicle is your property. However, the parking lot is the employer's property. In a free society, a property owner gets to set the rules for those who enter his property, and can expel someone for any or no reason. Also in a free society, a man has a right to associate with any other man on mutually consensual terms. Absent some additional contractual terms, either party to an employment arrangement can withdraw his consent at any time.

So yes, you have the right to refuse to allow an employer to search your car, but he has the right to expel you from his property and to terminate his employment relationship with you.

Of course the conditions you voluntarily agree to when you form an employment relationship may impact other areas of your life... like if you voluntarily agree to work at a company who prohibits guns on the premises, it will be inconvenient for you to go to work armed, if you park on the premises. However, the key here is that you VOLUNTARILY agreed to accept those conditions when you formed the employment relationship. Nobody is sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to work there. In a free society, if you aren't willing to accept the conditions an employer places on his consent to form employment relationship, the answer is simple... YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK THERE! The right to free association goes both ways. Either party can terminate the association at any time. If the terms under which you are willing to work don't match the terms that an employer is willing to employ you, then you shouldn't form/continue a relationship with that employer.

BTW, to avoid any confusion, when I talk about rights, I do not mean so-called "rights" that some government grants or denies to you. I am talking about natural, inalienable, God-given rights... like our right to bear arms. Obviously our right to property and our right to free association are infringed upon greatly in our current society. For instance, governments attempt to force employers to continue a relationship with employees even if they do not consent to employment under some circumstances, such as when the employer wants to terminate the relationship based on the race, alienage, nationality, sex, disability, etc. of the employee. But the fact that the government already infringes on our right to freedom of association in some instances is no argument for why they should infringe on it further!

 

[PTT]

Of course your vehicle is your property. However, the parking lot is the employer's property. In a free society, a property owner gets to set the rules for those who enter his property, and can expel someone for any or no reason. Also in a free society, a man has a right to associate with any other man on mutually consensual terms. Absent some additional contractual terms, either party to an employment arrangement can withdraw his consent at any time.

So yes, you have the right to refuse to allow an employer to search your car, but he has the right to expel you from his property and to terminate his employment relationship with you.

Of course the conditions you voluntarily agree to when you form an employment relationship may impact other areas of your life... like if you voluntarily agree to work at a company who prohibits guns on the premises, it will be inconvenient for you to go to work armed, if you park on the premises. However, the key here is that you VOLUNTARILY agreed to accept those conditions when you formed the employment relationship. Nobody is sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to work there. In a free society, if you aren't willing to accept the conditions an employer places on his consent to form employment relationship, the answer is simple... YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK THERE! The right to free association goes both ways. Either party can terminate the association at any time. If the terms under which you are willing to work don't match the terms that an employer is willing to employ you, then you shouldn't form/continue a relationship with that employer.

BTW, to avoid any confusion, when I talk about rights, I do not mean so-called "rights" that some government grants or denies to you. I am talking about natural, inalienable, God-given rights... like our right to bear arms. Obviously our right to property and our right to free association are infringed upon greatly in our current society. For instance, governments attempt to force employers to continue a relationship with employees even if they do not consent to employment under some circumstances, such as when the employer wants to terminate the relationship based on the race, alienage, nationality, sex, disability, etc. of the employee. But the fact that the government already infringes on our right to freedom of association in some instances is no argument for why they should infringe on it further!

BUT, there are limits to private property rights.

Can an employer prohibit black people or women? Can an employer fire somebody for joining a religion?

And this bit about 'you don't have to work there' is wrong too. Many times, these large employers only exist because government regulation prevents smaller and more efficient competitors from entering the industry, often at the request of the big companies.

This whole recession thing was also caused by government, and often people have to take a job at one of these big employers to keep bread on the table after their small business tanked.

So now insult is added to injury when they have to make their commute unarmed for the privilege of earning minimum wage working for these big businesses who are only where they are because they collude with regulators to screw the competition.

Don't expect me to shed any tears for their lost 'rights' to regulate what other people do in their own private automobiles.

If they don't like playing by the rules, they are free to shut the business down.

 

[GEM]

The companies only care about liability. They care not for your 'rights'. You can buy into their sophistry and compare their company parking lot to your redoubt in the mountains.

If you do - you are a sucker.

 

[alsaqr]

Some OK employers are chapped by this law but so be it.



Tell your TX politicians to pass this bill.

 

[kurt1305]

For all intents and purposes, it is dead this session. There are only 39 days left in the session and it hasn't even made it out of the starting gate to committee. It would need to go to committee, pass on the Senate floor, go to House Committee, the House floor for a vote and then to the Governor.

 

[GEM]

The chatter on the TX chl forum is that things are in the works, etc.

Believe it when I see it. I do think, that if this fails, it is a serious and a touch existential set back. The House is grim with the calendar shennigans like before - but we aren't getting to the House.

This is with a supposed conservative legislature. If I'm correct, then the RKBA groups were played by legislators and the governor.

 

[G27RR]

Here's a fun little link. I believe this is the correct bill...

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB231

Basically, its no where at this point. Its been filed. I really do wish it would pass though.

V.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB321

I think you meant 321 not 231, which is a DUI related bill. It passed the Senate and is out of the House committee but hasn't had a House vote yet.

 

[Crosswind81]

I think valid arguments for property rights vs the right to bear arms and protect oneself have been well articulated here. I wonder what liability a property owner has in providing security for one's employees or in the event something happens to said employee that would expose the property owner to culpability after the fact? In other words, if the unarmed employee gets hurt or killed going to or from work or while on the job, is the property owner exposing themselves to a lawsuit for failure to provide security when they assume that responsibility by their no guns rules? Seems to me, that liability cuts both ways. Is anyone aware of a suit ever brought because of this situation? Does it stand up to legal scrutiny that the employer is now responsible for the safety of the employee going to and from work if the emplyee cannot bear arms because of work rules?

 

[GEM]

That's a good question, and commonly brought up. Thus, I asked 4 very progun attorneys and looked at the legal literature.

There are no strong analyses for that position. The law review articles postulate that the great liability risk is for a company or location to allow carry than liability for not letting you carry.

The key issue and I'm NOT a lawyer is the directness of the action. If you proactively let guns be carried, you take the risk of the gun actor doing bad. However, you have little risk for the actions of a criminal - UNLESs you can prove a direct and very predictable threat. Not the vague threat of that there may be a crime.

The lawyers (again all staunch gun folks and knowing the area) also say that such a case would have to be taken on contingency against the legal resources of a major institution. Your personal damages (as compared to a large class action suit) might not justify the contingency - esp. if they want to fight as compared to giving a settlement and starting a precedent.

None of them would take it on contingency (as a business analysis) as compared to an advocacy analysis. Note you haven't seen such law suits at Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois. Legal action as been on the basis of failure to follow procedure on known threats - Cho or not locking down the school.

That probably has more weight than suing that since the school knew Cho was disturbed, that you should armed. The argument was that they should have gotten rid of him, like the CC did with Loughner in AZ.

Thus, it sounds good but I haven't found an expert or literature that suggests it is a viable legal threat.

That's why legislation is need to override the property rights (again a scam on the rights crowd - sigh) argument and limit institutional liability for the acton of a licensed carrier.

I really have no use for this is my castle argument. Given all the restrictions on businesses, it is clearly emotional and territorial as compared to having respect for the greater right of self-defense.

I don't have to go to your business but you don't have to have a business if you are scared of a basic right.

 

[Lou McGopher]

BUT, there are limits to private property rights.
Can an employer prohibit black people or women? Can an employer fire somebody for joining a religion?

These are limitations imposed by fiat. They aren't inherent in the nature of the right.

Many times, these large employers only exist because government regulation prevents smaller and more efficient competitors from entering the industry, often at the request of the big companies.

Right, but the law wouldn't be restricted to just those companies, would it?

If they don't like playing by the rules, they are free to shut the business down.

Suppose instead the law was to prohibit the carrying of firearms into any retail establishment. Would you say this to pro-gun business owners? Play by the rules or shut down?