Texas Alert - Firearms on Employers Property Bill 3/19

[TexasRifleman]

Please Contact Senate Committee Members Listed Below!

Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 20, the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee will consider Senate Bill 534 by State Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), TSRA and NRA-backed legislation that will allow Concealed Handgun Licensees to transport and store handguns in their locked motor vehicles while parked on their employer's property. This important bill will allow hard-working, law abiding Texans to protect themselves on their daily commutes to and from work.

Members of Senate Criminal Justice Committee are: Chairman: Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston), Vice Chairman: Senator Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo), Senator Bob Deuell (R-Greenville), Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), Senator John Carona (R-Dallas), Senator Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-McAllen), and Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy).

Please remember that Senator Hegar is the bill sponsor so thank his office for carrying this important.

From TSRA alert.

 

[MechAg94]

I am of two minds on this one about whether it is a good idea or not. However, it will likely encourage companies to set up parking outside the fence.

 

[TexasRifleman]

it will likely encourage companies to set up parking outside the fence.

Dunno really. I don't think that many companies care one way or another honestly. This just puts it in writing and let's us know who to avoid if they DO set up special parking for this.

 

[LawBot5000]

Practically speaking, it will not have 90 percent of the bad effects most people are predicting. All it will do is restrain a small minority of employers that see fit to search their employees vehicles and meddle in their personal lives.

 

[CatsDieNow]

Does it allow just CHL holders to keep weapons in thier car or does it prevent employers from retaliating? If I could still get fired for non-compliance, what's the point?

(Nevermind that I work on property leased from the federal government...)

 

[Art Eatman]

Is anybody familiar with the text of the bill? Seems to me that if it contained some language to the effect that the owner of a parking lot is not civilly liable for the contents of any employee's automobile, they wouldn't object. The main issue for an employer is the "deep pockets doctrine" if an employee goes postal.

Art

 

[tulsamal]

Seems to me that if it contained some language to the effect that the owner of a parking lot is not civilly liable for the contents of any employee's automobile, they wouldn't object. The main issue for an employer is the "deep pockets doctrine" if an employee goes postal.

You would think so, wouldn't you? Which is why the state of Oklahoma specifically said that employers were not responsible if an employee retrieved a gun from their car and shot somebody. And yet those same big companies STILL took it to Federal court. And those courts STILL have not released any ruling on it. And so an employee that lives far away from work but MUST park on the company parking lot is effectively disarmed nearly 100% of the time when he might actually need to defend himself. Great system.

It's frustrating because you can call or write your Representative or Senator and maybe get something moving. But the courts can just sit on a case literally for years and there is nothing you can do!!

Gregg

 

[TexasRifleman]

Text from one of the online law libraries.....

I can't imagine why an employer would object either.



This bill would amend the Labor Code, effective September 1, 2007, to prohibit an employer from penalizing an employee who transports or stores a handgun in the employee's locked motor vehicle in the employee parking area if the employee provides a copy of his/her DPS-issued license to carry a concealed handgun AND files a signed written statement with the employee's immediate supervisor containing all of the following affirmations:

- the employee is licensed to carry a concealed handgun;

- the employee intends to store the concealed handgun in the employee's locked motor vehicle while parked in a parking area provided by the employer; AND

- the employee will not remove the handgun from the employee's vehicle except in self-defense in the immediate parking area. Additionally, the employer could not penalize an employee for applying for or holding a license to carry a concealed handgun.

An employer would not be liable in a civil action for damages resulting from an employee's storage of a concealed handgun pursuant to this Act.

 

[ball3006]

This is a good bill.......

However, no matter what the law says, my company will fire me. They say "we have more attorneys and money than you do so sue us".......Just wait until a CHL holder gets mugged/killed on the way from/to work and has no means to protect themselves due to company policy, no matter what the law says. Someone will probably get to retire very early on that law suit......chris3

 

[MechAg94]

Date: March 20, 2007
Subject: Security Alert


Last Friday night, a Galleria mall employee was approached by a black male as she went to her car in the Orange Garage. The assailant forced her to drive to the roof of the garage where he sexually assaulted her. He then forced her to drive away from the Galleria and down Westheimer. The victim convinced the assailant to let her use the restroom at a restaurant where she was able to call the police. The assailant was then arrested by police.

We just learned of this incident this morning. This story was broadcast on Channel 11 news last night. The news story can be found on the KHOU website as follows:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/houstonmetro/stories/khou070319_tj_galleriarapes.2c9ecae1.html

As a reminder, the 24-hour Security phone number for the Galleria office towers is 713-xxx-xxxx.

I just got this in an email a few minutes ago. At the location in Houston I used to work at, we parked in this same parking garage. I transferred a while back, but I am still on the mailing list. I guess this is as good a reason as any for that law. Seems silly to limit carry in a 3rd party parking garage.

My employer's rule was that they said they would fire you for weapons in your car in that 3rd party parking garage as well. Refusal of search was grounds for termination as well. I don't think they ever actually searched anyone's vehicle there. I have only heard of that at a couple plant locations. At least once, the search victim demanded that everyone be searched and one or two other people were fired as well. I think they were all truck drivers.

 

[Elza]

It might not make much difference as far as your job is concerned. Under Texas law an employer does not have to have a reason to fire an employee. Retaliation could be a real concern. If you are protected by a union it could be very helpful. Companies find it a bit more difficult to dump a union employee without cause.

It doesn’t matter in my case. I’m a Federal employee and work on a Federal reservation. Parking off-station is not really practical. Gun in car = instant termination.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Under Texas law an employer does not have to have a reason to fire an employee.

In practical terms however that is not really true. The whole "Employment at will or whim" thing took a beating in the 80's with zillions of wrongful termination suits.

Because of things like META (Model Employee Termination Act not used in Texas but many states) companies even in Texas cover themselves by documenting. Wrongful termination suits happen in Texas often because of this.

On top of that you have literally hundreds of Federal employment regulations, so companies have to make sure not to step on any of those too. The "Left Handed One Eyed Typist Protection Act" and junk like that (yes that one I made up but read the list sometime, it's nearly that bad)

Courts have usually held that there needed to be SOME reason, even if it was flimsy.

A model employee fired out of the blue because of a firearm will certainly have a nice lawsuit case.

 

[Elza]

TexasRifleman

In practical terms however that is not really true. The whole "Employment at will or whim" thing took a beating in the 80's with zillions of wrongful termination suits.

I wouldn’t recommend saying that to my wife. About 10 years ago she developed serious health problems. She applied for long-term disability. The company is self-insured. She was fired the next day for “poor work performance”. Two months prior she was given a $4,000 award for her “exemplary work performance”. (One of the highest the company had ever given.) There wasn’t a lawyer in the county that would touch the case. They all said that she had no grounds and couldn’t win in any way, shape, or form due to Texas law. The Feds said the same thing.

 

[TexasRifleman]

There wasn’t a lawyer in the county that would touch the case.

Interesting. My company lives in fear of just that kind of case after losing one for a LARGE chunk of change in Austin back in the late 80s, which is why I know all this junk. I have some direct reports and to fire someone I have to do a LOT of record keeping and attend all kinds of goofy training on the subject. Never know I guess.

 

[MechAg94]

Our company requires documentation of a verbal warning and then a letter in the file prior to termination. Documented annual performance evaluations like we do would make it difficult to fire someone.

 

[wdlsguy]

Poison pill added to SB 534

workers are required to notify their employer that they carry guns in their cars.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4648410.html

 

[texas bulldog]

so can anyone comment on the chances of this passing?

i can see how it might not protect everyone in every situation as the bill's sponsor might like, given how the rest of texas employment law is tipped heavily in favor of the employer [as elza points out].

but for me personally, this would be great. i'm close enough to the top [of a very small organization, mind you] that i could force a change in the policy manual. and i know too many things that no one else does for retaliation to really be possible, not that i think it would even occur to the bossman to do so. he'd just grin and bear it. besides, i'm pretty open about my pro-gun stance at work, so it wouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[TexasRifleman]

so can anyone comment on the chances of this passing?

I would be absolutely floored if it didn't.

Look at the votes on the Castle Doctrine thing. This is small potatoes compared to that.

I'm betting it's a done deal.

 

[texas bulldog]

wdlsguy...

that's a poison pill for some, sure. and that's a damn shame. but i'd still take this over what we have now. i'd have the required paperwork on my boss' desk 09/01/2007.

ultimately, a law preventing your employer from requiring you to submit to an illegal search is what's in order here. but until we can get that, i'll take anything that moves the law a bit more in favor of personal liberties.

 

[texas bulldog]

Look at the votes on the Castle Doctrine thing. This is small potatoes compared to that.

I'm betting it's a done deal.

okay...i guess a more appropriate question is...do we have to look forward to it getting tied up in court a la oklahoma?

 

[wdlsguy]

I've already written my senator and representative, asking them to oppose the bill in its current form.

If you don't think an anti-gun employer could make your life very miserable, you have no imagination.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If you don't think an anti-gun employer couldn't make your life very miserable, you have no imagination.

I agree but I think it's too late.

Those that work for a company that anti should just not take advantage of this thing.

Wouldn't be any different than it is now.

The real work is to pass legislation keeping employers from being able to search vehicles.

 

[texas bulldog]

wdlsguy,

i gotta agree with texas rifleman here. certainly an anti employer could make your life miserable; i won't argue otherwise. if i thought my boss was anti, i wouldn't take advantage. i'm lucky in that he's a moderate-to-pro who just doesn't own any himself. he's in the "how much do you trust your government?" camp.

and the law could definitely be better, without a doubt. but if it improves the situation for some, 25% say, than it's not "bad" legislation. what we have to work for is employers simply being forbidden from searching your vehicle. frankly, i'm not sure i'd feel real comfortable working for an employer that would do so, but i also understand that people need to work. so they make compromises.

bottom line...if it passes, each CHL holder will have to decide for themselves whether or not to take advantage.

 

[wdlsguy]

You guys are going to march into HR and hand them a copy of your CHL?

 

[TexasRifleman]

You guys are going to march into HR and hand them a copy of your CHL?

Nope. Not a chance.

But someone might benefit from this.

It wouldn't pass otherwise.

Baby steps. We've been nibbling away at these since CHL came to Texas.

One more bite taken.