Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Texas Employer Parking Lot Bill Passes, with a problem

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596

    Texas Employer Parking Lot Bill Passes, with a problem

    (b)Section 52.061 does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,OR who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, from possessing a firearm the employee is otherwise authorized by law to possess on the premises of the employer's business. In this subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code.


    But the OR is not in the wording.
    Anybody see how this will only apply to the CHL?
    Last edited by MR Redenck; 05-12-2011 at 05:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member pooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    (b)Section 52.061 does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,OR who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, from possessing a firearm the employee is otherwise authorized by law to possess on the premises of the employer's business. In this subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code.


    But the OR is not in the wording.
    Anybody see how this will only apply to the CHL?
    You misunderstand the intent. It's making the point that employers can still prohibit CHL holders from carrying on the premises. The definition of premises used specifically excludes parking lots, walkways & driveways.

    It means they can't stop you from carrying in the parking lot, but the can stop you from carrying inside the building.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Without the "or" in there, it makes the CHL licensed holder only lawfully possessing in the parking lot that would otherwise be restricted.
    The "or" would have to be in there for a person to carry under the Castle Doctrine. As in, or a person who lawfully possess firearm.....Seeee

  4. #4
    Regular Member pooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    Without the "or" in there, it makes the CHL licensed holder only lawfully possessing in the parking lot that would otherwise be restricted.
    The "or" would have to be in there for a person to carry under the Castle Doctrine. As in, or a person who lawfully possess firearm.....Seeee
    It's worded that way because anywhere we're prohibited by law to carry (with a CHL) will still be off limits. That's what the "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm" is for. You have to have a CHL and it can't be a place already prohibited by law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member flintknapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Deep East Texas, , USA
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    Without the "or" in there, it makes the CHL licensed holder only lawfully possessing in the parking lot that would otherwise be restricted.
    The "or" would have to be in there for a person to carry under the Castle Doctrine. As in, or a person who lawfully possess firearm.....Seeee

    Huh? The "Castle Doctrine" has nothing to do with authority to carry.

    Perhaps you were thinking about the MPA (Motorist Protection Act).
    Last edited by flintknapper; 05-12-2011 at 09:58 PM.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by flintknapper View Post
    Huh? The "Castle Doctrine" has nothing to do with authority to carry.

    Perhaps you were thinking about the MPA (Motorist Protection Act).
    The sections of Chapter 9 dealing with defense of self, home, property and others, and the 46.02 provision for car carry, could be taken together as "Castle Doctrine". The term does not have a legal definition in Texas; it is simply the common term for the legal theory based on "a man's home is his castle". This theory dates back to English common law.

    Back on topic, the omission of an "or" basically restricts the restriction. This clause now ONLY applies to CHLs. This is a good thing, because the clause is a restriction on the general provision that carry on an employer's land is legal; the clause states that carry in a building is still at the discretion of the employer, regardless of the carrier's CHL status.

    Because there is no "or" where the OP indicated, the exemption of the building from the protections under the new law is limited to CHL holders; those carrying under LEOSA, or any other present or future provision allowing concealed carry without a CHL, may carry concealed in an employer's building and the exemption does NOT apply (the employer can still fire the carrier, but cannot have them arrested).

  7. #7
    Regular Member flintknapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Deep East Texas, , USA
    Posts
    30

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Liko81 View Post
    The sections of Chapter 9 dealing with defense of self, home, property and others, and the 46.02 provision for car carry, could be taken together as "Castle Doctrine".
    And there is a Unicorn in my front yard.

    I think you've tried to "stretch" it....well beyond any reasonable limit/interpretation.

    The Castle Doctrine was enacted to address certain specific issues, none of which relate to the authority to carry (if even required), that was my clear point.



    The "Castle Doctrine" basically did three things:

    1. Removed the duty to retreat anywhere you legally have a right to be… when using deadly force (some limitations)

    2. Created a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary, when dealing with your home, business, or car, or when attempting to prevent certain violent felonies (some limitations)

    3. Created immunity from civil liability, as your use of deadly force was justified under TPC Chp. 9. (this does not mean you can not be sued, it just means you will win).

    -------------------------------------------


    AN ACT

    relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

    SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

    (4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    (5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

    (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

    (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

    (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

    [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

    (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

    (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

    SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

    (b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

    SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
    __________________________________________________

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •