TEXAS: Guns in Work Parking Lots Bill Passes, Goes to Gov. for Signature.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.mywesttexas.com/top_stories/article_d30227ff-f925-5c6e-b874-d4b99a96fa17.html


AUSTIN (AP) -- A bill forcing Texas companies to allow employees to keep guns in their locked cars is headed to Gov. Rick Perry.

The state House approved the final version of the measure Thursday 130-11. It allows employees to keep any gun they are legally allowed to possess in their vehicles -- even at work.

SNIOP


The bill makes employers immune from liability involving the firearms.

Perry will sign it. Another victory for gun-owner's rights. Look at that vote! 130 to 11.

Next session we will come back and pick up campus carry and open carry for CHL holders.

[onehandle]

1. Conservatives are AWESOME!

President Perry will save us from the dangers of sanity.

[GreenStormCloud]

3. A lot of Democrats voted for that bill.

Notice the vote total. You can't get 130 for without including a lot of Democrats too.

[onehandle]

4. There are no Conservative Democrats?

News to me.

Perry, who is praised Constantly in this room, is a Republican.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. They are STILL Democrats.

I haven't seen praise for Perry here. We have noted that he signs pro-gun legislaltion. Since this is the guns forum we don't talk much about other issues here.

[lawodevolution]

9. and Perry is getting the credit because he will sign it, imagine if a democrat governor

signed it.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lawodevolution]

13. If a democratic governor signed it he would gain a lot of ground for the democratic party

[DanTex]

18. Why stop there? Imagine if the Democrats come out in favor of teaching creationism in schools!

Maybe we can win over even more teabaggers!

[slackmaster]

23. False equivalence on many levels

:nuke:

[gejohnston]

27. 80 million tea baggers?

Look, most of the tea baggers I saw wouldn't know a Garand, from a Luger, from a Glock, from a wheel lock if their lives depended on it. Yeah some dumb asses decided to show up armed and risked learning self fulfilling prophesy means. Just like when the Black Panthers did it at the California state house. That was my thought when I saw them on the TV.

[lawodevolution]

41. Gun freedom is liberal.

[Bold Lib]

21. And to think, if only Ann Richards had signed the CHL bill in Texas. Are you knew around here?

You seem to have a short memory on Texas governors and Texas issues.

[TheCowsCameHome]

25. Who knew what is new? Who knew what, and when did they knew it?

You seem to have missed the point.

:rofl:

"democrat" party is considered a slur around these parts, pardner.

[Bold Lib]

28. The only one saying that is you. And you seem to forget the point is

Ann Richards was a loved Democratic Governor of Texas until she twice vetoed the CHL bill - one of which was by referendum directly from the people of Texas. This of course lead to the shrub skating in on the sole promise that he would sign the CHL bill. What would the state of our country be right now but for Ann Richards' pig headedness on an issue that the people clearly wanted? THAT is the point.

[Tejas]

42. Ann Richards presidential run?

"What would the state of our country be right now but for Ann Richards' pig headedness on an issue that the people clearly wanted?"


Wow, I've never looked at it that way. Excellent point, no telling what doors would've been opened!

[onehandle]

22. shh.

Be vewy vewy quiet.

[RSillsbee]

33. Speaking of republicans who are praised constantly in this room

Josh Sugarman
Paul Helmke
Sarah Brady
James Brady

[gejohnston]

8. so you are putting the power of a corporation

over the individual right of a person? Are you sure you are a liberal? Any time an individual right trumps corporate power I always say awesome.

[Tesha]

15. Funny -- I thought people here defended the property rights of the property owner...

...to put up a "No guns" sign and have it mean something.
But now even that minimal right has been removed in Texas
in favor of gun rights.

Tesha

[lawodevolution]

16. The vehicle is an extension of your own private property and yes when your vehicle

is parked on the property of a company that authorizes the vehicle to be parked there the inside of the vehicle is still the private property of the owner of the vehicle.

[Tesha]

24. Interesting legal theory, but it hasn't generally held up in court. (NT)

[lawodevolution]

30. it will now. and yes, a vehicle is an extension of your private residence in Texas

and many other states.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. That makes about as much sense as saying your crotch is private property..

... so now you can bring a gun to work as long as it's crotched.

[petronius]

47. It seems like more and more employers want to get into our crotches, in the form

of drug, alcohol, and nicotine tests that are totally unrelated to job performance (and intrude into private, off-work, legal activity). So I actually see this as just another facet of opposing unjustified employer intrusions into a worker's privacy; IMO, if a boss wants to look into or control a worker's urine, pocket, car, etc, he needs to have a darn good justification. Sadly, the pendulum has swung pretty far in favor of the corporation these days...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. "private, off-work"

Doesn't apply when you or your car are on their property during work hours.

[petronius]

50. Unless you're suggesting that an employer should have unfettered access to the blood, urine,

pockets, and car of a worker while on the premises, I think that statement is too simplistic. Workers don't give up their privacy and property rights when they come to work, and I'd say that a corporation should have a valid justification for breaching that. When the two sets of property/privacy rights come in to conflict, I'll side with the worker.

A car, wherever it is, is clearly the worker's private property, and the employer has no legitimate interest in it or right to control its contents. So to me, it strikes a reasonable balance that the company can prevent people from carrying certain items inside, but should keep its nose out of their cars...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

52. I think we are talking about two separate issues.

I don't believe an employer has the unfettered right to search a person, vehicle OR bodily fluids of an employee. Never said that.

The employer DOES have the right to determine WHAT items are brought on to his/her property.

THAT'S the issue.

That said, I suppose a search of the vehicle or person MIGHT be in order IF there is REASONABLE evidence of a violation of company policy. For me, RANDOM searches or drug-tests wouldn't be considered reasonable - I suspect that's the case for you as well.

Telling a co-worker you have a gun in your glove-box or your crotch might be reasonable grounds for a search if the company policy says no guns on the premises. The employee has the right to refuse the search and the employer has the right to terminate the relationship.

[petronius]

53. My contention is that the worker has a right of privacy in his person and his property,

including the car. For the employer to breach that - either to search or set limits - there needs to be a solid justification. An employers desire to limit items in a car in the lot runs into the employers right to privacy and right to control his own property. Since the corporation has no reasonable interest in or right to the contents of the vehicle, the balance in that case falls to the worker (in fact, I'll always side with the worker, until the employer provides a solid need to the contrary)...

[petronius]

31. When the property rights of the corporation conflict with the property and privacy

rights of the worker, I side with the worker, the individual, the real person...

[benEzra]

38. They can. You can't carry a gun on the employer's property, and such signs have the force of law.

What the employer can't do is tell you you can't have a gun legally secured inside your property for licensed carry to and from work, or shooting activities after work. The original incident that prompted these laws was when Weyerhauser went after licensed hunters on the first day of hunting season, and fired anyone who either had a firearm legally secured in their vehicle, or who chose not to have their car searched.

I personally think this is a reasonable protection of worker's rights, without infringing on a corporation's power to set its own policies within the workplace itself.

[Billy Burnett]

2. Now maybe underpaid workers have "2nd amendment remedies".

:crazy:

[spin]

5. Strange that we haven't had any problems in Florida ...

we have had that law since 2008.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Do you REALLY believe that a line in the employee's manual would stop a madman?

Do you really truly believe that a person who has decided that he is going to shoot up his workplace will pay any attention to a rule by the company that forbids him to have a gun in the car? I you do believe that then it is an amazing display of naivete.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

43. "pre-crime" much?

[rrneck]

45. You can bet corporations do. nt

[WatsonT]

48. Clearly this was the only thing preventing people from going on shooting rampages

"Gee I'd like to kill my boss, but I could like totally get fined for having a gun in my car".

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Whoa! 130-11

Damn glad I don't live in Texas.

[X_Digger]

14. So are we. n/t

[Bold Lib]

19. LOL. n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

26. It's nice when everyone is happy.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DWC]

39. Whoa! 130-11

Damn glad I do live in Texas

Semper Fi,

[rl6214]

51. Damn glad I DO live in Texas, and you don't.

[Bold Lib]

20. That's one. I was really hoping that the open carry and campus carry

would also pass but it looks like they will run out of time again - just like two years ago. Now we'll have to wait another two years. . .

[TheCowsCameHome]

32. It'll give you something to complain about for another 24 months.

Look at the bright side.

[Bold Lib]

34. It generates public interest and creates opportunities for pro gun democrats to

win more elections. THAT is what I consider a bright side.

[Logical]

29. In Missouri it is legal to have the gun in my works parking lot......

but company policy is that I need to notify my manager when I have a gun in the parking lot.

So it sort of defeats the purpose. Because then work I am sure will use it to punish workers at some point.

[spin]

37. Florida law prohibits an employer from asking about firearms...

The 2010 Florida Statutes(including Special Session A)

90.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.—


***snip***

4) PROHIBITED ACTS.—No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):
(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.
(b) No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.
http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?m&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.251.html

[oneshooter]

35. When this first came up a few years ago I was working for a

large multi-national company. I asked the company safety trainer about it. He said that it had come up in meetings and the company answer was that "It is only State law, we will ignore it and continue to terminate anyone caught with a firearm in their vehicle."

Enough said.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spin]

36. Does the Texas law have penalties for employers who harass employees?

The 2010 Florida Statutes(including Special Session A)

790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.—
(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008.”

***snip***

(6) ENFORCEMENT.—The Attorney General shall enforce the protections of this act on behalf of any customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act. If there is reasonable cause to believe that the aggrieved person’s rights under this act have been violated by a public or private employer, the Attorney General shall commence a civil or administrative action for damages, injunctive relief and civil penalties, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the provisions of s. 760.51, or may negotiate a settlement with any employer on behalf of any person aggrieved under the act. However, nothing in this act shall prohibit the right of a person aggrieved under this act to bring a civil action for violation of rights protected under the act. In any successful action brought by a customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act, the court shall award all reasonable personal costs and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the violation of rights under this act. In any action brought pursuant to this act, the court shall award all court costs and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?m&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.251.html

[lawodevolution]

40. Wait until they fire someone and the lawsuit goes to the Texas court system

[Tejas]

44. Kirk Watson (D-14) was a co-author of this bill.

:)