Texas Parking Lot Carry Passes!

[TexasBill]

Senate Bill 321, which permits Texans to store their handguns in their personal vehicles while they are at work has passed. It now goes to Governor Perry for his signature. If Perry approves it, the legislation will become effective on September 1, 2011.

Once the new law goes into effect, employers that don't allow you to carry at work cannot prohibit you from leaving your CCW locked in your vehicle. It applies both to CHL holders and to Texans who carry a handgun in their car pursuant to HB1855.

The gun must remain in the vehicle: you cannot bring it out of your car or truck so I guess that means putting your holster on once you're inside.

There are two exceptions: Independent school districts and Public primary and secondary schools and employees servicing oil and gas leases (employees with CHLs can store their sidearms).

The bill includes very strong liability protection for employers: other than for gross negligence, they cannot be held responsible for incidents involving employee firearms.

The Texas State Rifle Association is urging members to contact Governor Perry and voice their support for his approval of this bill.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Can an employer in Texas search your car?

 

[TexasBill]

That's a tough one. Legally, I believe the employer can make it a condition of employment that personal effects are subject to search. But I don't know that that extends to cars in a parking lot. Since employees might not park on the employer's property, I don't know how far that authority might be implemented without involving the police.

The bill, as passed, forbids the employer to prohibit parking lot storage but as the TSRA's Alice Tripp notes, we should watch for employers to start rewriting employee rulebooks, even though they have no legal liability. There's a big difference between an employer prohibiting handguns in locked vehicles and making an agreement not to do that a condition of employment. That may not be strictly legal (requiring an employee to agree to an unlawful action) but I bet it would take an expensive lawsuit to get such a practice stopped because Texas doesn't like to interfere with employer-employee interactions.

I remember when HB1855 was first passed. Some District Attorneys, including Harris County's, ignored the new law and told LEOs under their jurisdiction to continue to enforce the old "traveling" laws even though a conviction would be impossible to obtain. It took another session of the Legislature, and a rewrite, to settle the matter once and for all.

 

[saltydog452]

USPS employees, or customers affected?

alty

 

[Deltaboy1984]

USPS employees, or customers affected?

alty

According the Media report NOPE. You still under the BAN.

 

[GEM]

If an employer can make it a condition of employment not to have a gun in the car - then the bill has no force. Seems that would be resolved early on.

Also, it will depend how the liability attorneys view the risk of a wrongful termination or invalid contract lawsuit as compared to the risk of a seemingly legal gun.

Many handbooks have such rules now. Do they have to be rewritten?

 

[RETG]

Won't cover Fed buildings either.

 

[TexasBill]

As I said, employers might try to make it a condition of employment. However, I don't know if that would stand up to a legal challenge as the law prohibits an employer from forbidding employees to store their handguns in their locked personal vehicles.

I would imagine the big thing working in employers' favor right now is that most employees would be unwilling to risk their job.

The one thing to remember about exceptions is that Texas law defines a difference between "premises" and parking lots, sidewalks, etc. "Premises" covers the buildings in which the employer conducts business but even privately owned parking lots are not considered "premises." Federal-owned parking facilities might be exempt, but parking lots for buildings in which the feds merely lease space are not.

 

[hermannr]

I want to throw something out on this and see what comments come back:

Think about the manner an Embassy building/consolate building/office is considered the private property of the country represented, and not considered to be subject to the country that embassy is in....

Consider that a POV is considered your private property, even on the public road.

As long as your legal weapon is inside your vehicle, it is none of your employers business what is in that car, as long as it is legal according to the state law.

I will give an example: The US Military claims to have the power to control firearms connected to a person in the service, even if those firearms are on private property. My oldest daughter, (her husband was in the military at the time) had the MPs come to her house and they wanted to do a "health and welfare" inspection and told her she had to submit to the inspection because her husband was in the military. She would not let them in her house and read them the riot act as to what she would do should they attempt to force their way in, this was as she was calling 911 and asking for the Sheriff because "someone is trying to force their way into my house"

She won. Her argument was the house was her's as much as it was her husband's, and as the house was not on base, she was not subject to the military or any of it's rules or inspections, and the the military was not going to touch any of her guns, or anything else in her house, or even look in the house.