PDA

View Full Version : Tx Motorists Protection Act...Go Gov. Perry



Randy45
12-07-2007, 11:04 PM
thought you guys might like seeing this.....

Motorists Protection Act (http://www.gunlaws.com/TXBills2007/HB1815%20Summary.html) • HB 1815 (http://www.gunlaws.com/TXBills2007/HB01815F.doc)
“Concealed Handguns in Vehicles OK” -- “Traveling” law confusion a thing of the past.
The offense of illegally carrying a handgun, illegal knife or club has been removed from law if you are on your own premises, premises under your control, or inside or directly enroute to a motor vehicle you own or is under your control. The weapons remain illegal if you intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carry them in plain view in a motor vehicle, or are involved in certain criminal activity, are in a criminal gang, or cannot legally possess a firearm. This new law ends decades of legal abuse of innocent citizens under deceptive “traveling” rules, affirmative defenses, prosecutorial discretion, denials of civil rights and traps for the unwary.
Texas thus becomes the fourth state to recognize Freedom to Carry (FTC) -- concealed carry with no permit -- at least under the narrow circumstances of in vehicles and on your premises. (The other three are Vermont, Alaska, and Montana outside of city limits. Arizona recognizes FTC in your home, business and on land you own or lease.) FTC differs from so-called “Right-to-Carry,” which requires a government-issued permit, forms, tests, taxation, fingerprinting, photographing, embedding in state and federal databases and an expiration date, for exercise of “rights.”
Passed (5/26/07), Effective date 9/1/07.

The Castle Doctrine (http://www.gunlaws.com/TXBills2007/SB378%20Summary.html) • SB 378 (http://www.gunlaws.com/TXBills2007/SB00378F.doc)
“Stand Your Ground” -- Improved personal defense against criminal attackers.
Establishes a presumption in Texas law that if a person unlawfully and with force enters or attempts to enter your home, vehicle or place of business or employment, it is reasonable for you to believe that the use of force, including deadly force, is immediately necessary to protect yourself. The same applies if the person takes or attempts to take you out of those places unlawfully and with force. The bill also explicitly states that you have no duty to retreat from such an attack if you are in a place you have a right to be, have not provoked the attack, and you are not engaged in unlawful activity. Lastly, the new law limits the ability of criminals and their families to sue innocent victims for killing or injuring their attackers. A wonderful piece of legislation that protects the innocent. This was the first bill signed by Governor Perry this session.
Passed 3/20/07, Effective date 9/1/07

Go Governor Perry.......Texas takes another positive step for gun rights...

Tyr
12-07-2007, 11:40 PM
So, does anybody know of cheap apartments in Texas? I might move, with a governor like that :p

singleshotcajun
12-08-2007, 01:07 AM
The next hurdle is the issue of having a firearm in your vehicle while parked in your employers parking lot. My employer has a policy of no firearms in vehicles in their parking lot. There is a bill in Austin to force employers to allow a handgun in the vehicle of a person with a Concealed carry permit, this is the big one and it will be a fight. I sure hope it passes.

Galaxieman
12-08-2007, 01:19 AM
The offense of illegally carrying a handgun, illegal knife or club has been removed from law if you are on your own premises, premises under your control, or inside or directly enroute to a motor vehicle you own or is under your control.

Texas thus becomes the fourth state to recognize Freedom to Carry (FTC) -- concealed carry with no permit -- at least under the narrow circumstances of in vehicles and on your premises. (The other three are Vermont, Alaska, and Montana outside of city limits. Arizona recognizes FTC in your home, business and on land you own or lease.) FTC differs from so-called “Right-to-Carry,” which requires a government-issued permit, forms, tests, taxation, fingerprinting, photographing, embedding in state and federal databases and an expiration date, for exercise of “rights.”
Passed (5/26/07), Effective date 9/1/07.
Go Governor Perry.......Texas takes another positive step for gun rights...
If I'm not mistaken, previously in Texas you could have a loaded firearm inside your vehicle, yes? But there was much confusion on how you got it to/from your car and place of business/home?
So basically, besides this making it easier getting to and from the car, by not having to case it before leaving the house/work, un-casing in the car then reversing it going back to your home/business, this also makes it perfectly clear you can not be busted for walking to/from the car via some obscure loophole.

Not a big step, but yep, a positive one!
Now if only all states recognized we have the right of "freedom to carry" everywhere anytime without "permission" from big brother like Vermont and Alaska....ahhhh wishful thinking eh? Maybe some day.

Randy45
12-08-2007, 01:27 AM
I hear he is trying to make it illegal to prevent licensed CCW from carrying their guns anywhere.......his comments were to the fact...it makes no sense to say our citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons and then turn around and let all the businesses then ban weapons from being carried on their premises.....I hope this will eventually go through.....they passed another bill with the previous two mentioned to allow CCW on LCRA property......since I work for LCRA this is a move I am very excited about not that I want to go totin a gun around everywhere....but it is nice to see someone starting to get more aggressive in protecting the rights we do have......

7.62x54r
12-08-2007, 08:31 AM
What about the employer's rights? If it's their property they have the right to decide what is allowed there. Employees have the right to work somewhere else if they don't like their employer's policies. When you demand that the gov't enforce your right to self defense at the expense of someone else's property rights you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. The gov't should have no say in either situation.

preachere
12-08-2007, 12:56 PM
What about the employer's rights? If it's their property they have the right to decide what is allowed there. Employees have the right to work somewhere else if they don't like their employer's policies. When you demand that the gov't enforce your right to self defense at the expense of someone else's property rights you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. The gov't should have no say in either situation.

I agree to an extent. It is a sticky issue. Where I work it is forbidden to have a firearm in your vehicle and I could lose my job if it is found out that I have on in there. But then is my employer obligated to keep me safe going to and from work? After all, I would have been armed and could have protected myself, for good or bad, if I had not been effectively disarmed due to my employers rule. I had a friend at work who was shot while using an ATM when the plant first opened. He didn't have a firearm before the attack and firmly believes in CCW now, but he can't carry concealed while going to and from work because they have banned the possession of firearms while on company property. Sticky indeed.

Regards,
Eric

7.62x54r
12-08-2007, 01:29 PM
I agree that it's a tough choice on the part of the employee whether to quit their job or take another, possibly lower paying, job, but the gov't should not be involved. If an employer loses enough employees or has to pay a higher wage to attract employees to an unsafe work place then they might reconsider such a policy. That is the only way they should be "forced" to change policies.

Coldwood
12-08-2007, 02:22 PM
What about the employer's rights? If it's their property they have the right to decide what is allowed there. Employees have the right to work somewhere else if they don't like their employer's policies. When you demand that the gov't enforce your right to self defense at the expense of someone else's property rights you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. The gov't should have no say in either situation.

I would agree that anybody, an employer or owner of private property, should be able to say no firearms allowed. But how are they going to enforce it? Of course you can stop somebody who has a rifle or shotgun hanging in the rear window of their pick-up, but if I have a pistol in the glove compartment...??? Who's going to stop me? I don't have to let anybody search my car.

In New York state, where I live, if I remember correctly, if a trooper stops me and asks to search my car, I don't have to let him do it. Unless he has probable cause, like a kilo of heroin sitting on my passenger seat in plain sight. Otherwise, I can refuse and he has to get a search warrant...and he'll call in back up, and there will be one car in front of me and one behind, with lights flashing, and we'll all sit there on the side of the road for hours while the search warrant is being executed. But hey, they're getting paid for their time, what else have they got to do? The point is, you're not going to win messing with the LEOs.

If I have a pistol sitting on the passenger seat, he can reasonably ask for my pistol permit and he can check to see if it's loaded. It shouldn't be, it's not legal, ammo should be in the trunk away from the firearm.

But if I have a loaded pistol in my glove compartment, out of sight, he has no probable cause for search. If he goes in there anyway and finds the loaded pistol without a search warrant, it's "tainted" evidence.

All good food for thought for us outhouse lawyers. Nobody wants to go to court on these issues. BUT, if you have a weapon in your glove compartment, how is your employer...or a public business... going to know unless you start shooting your mouth off...or have a reputation as a gunslinger? Use good and common sense.

7.62x54r
12-08-2007, 02:33 PM
You're comparing apples and oranges. If an employer makes it his policy to search employee's vehicles while on company property then you have to agree to it or the employer can dismiss you. The roads are "public" and the cop is bound (supposedly) by the Constitution which prevents (or is supposed to prevent) him from unreasonable searches and seizures. I agree that an employee ban on firearms on company property is very difficult to enforce and would not be be good for employee moral if it were, but it is still the employer's decision. If I were in that situation as an employee I would be looking for another job and keeping my mouth shut and firearm concealed in the meantime. However, if by some circumstance it was discovered that I was bringing a firearm onto company property against company policy I would accept my dismissal without protest.

Coldwood
12-08-2007, 02:58 PM
You're comparing apples and oranges. If an employer makes it his policy to search employee's vehicles while on company property then you have to agree to it or the employer can dismiss you. The roads are "public" and the cop is bound (supposedly) by the Constitution which prevents (or is supposed to prevent) him from unreasonable searches and seizures. I agree that an employee ban on firearms on company property is very difficult to enforce and would not be be good for employee moral if it were, but it is still the employer's decision. If I were in that situation as an employee I would be looking for another job and keeping my mouth shut and firearm concealed in the meantime. However, if by some circumstance it was discovered that I was bringing a firearm onto company property against company policy I would accept my dismissal without protest.

Good point and you're right. If an employer demanded that my car be searched, I would seek employment elsewhere. However, driving into a public parking lot...that's dicey...where do my rights stop and their's start? Since they are inviting me to shop at their store?

Mongo4567
12-08-2007, 03:16 PM
The whole issue around the restriction of firearms in your car on an employers property is a tricky one. The law that was proposed and has passed in other states like Oklahoma; only gives the employer the right to restrict firearms in the car if they have a fully gated parking lot with a person monitoring the entrance. The argument is that if they won't take efforts to increase your safety; they can't restrict licensed carry in the parking lot. Without gates, the parking lot is really a public area. With Texas being an employ at will state, it is risky to violate company policy. My company has the same restriction against firearms in the parking lot. I have a carry permit but I don't bring it on work property. I drive folks to lunch a lot. You must identify yourself as a permit holder when asked for ID. If I were to get pulled over or involved in an accident or something, it could easily cost me my job if I didn't abide by the rules.

Does a company policy like this put licensed carry permit holders at risk? I wonder how long before that is tested in court.

7.62x54r
12-08-2007, 03:16 PM
I'm almost certain the courts would decide in favor of an individual's "right" in a "public" parking lot based on laws and rulings such as the ADA which essentially remove a business owner's rights regarding his own property when it is accessible to the public. That is, if they did not allow themselves to be influenced with a bias against firearms. In my opinion that ruling would be incorrect though and a business owner should have the right to restrict what patrons bring on to his property (just as he should be allowed to decide whether or not to provide handicap facilities). The public also has the right to patronize another business and that should be the only thing limiting a business owner's decisions regarding his property.

preachere
12-08-2007, 04:23 PM
BUT, if you have a weapon in your glove compartment, how is your employer...or a public business... going to know unless you start shooting your mouth off...or have a reputation as a gunslinger? Use good and common sense.

I do. Lots of folks at work know I'm into firearms but only a few know I have a CCW permit. I also hired one of my co-workers to work for me a couple years ago. We both knew that we carried in our vehicles. Well, one day I fired him and he turned real ugly after that incident. We both still work for the same employer but it would be far too easy for him to remove his pistol from his vehicle, roll over on me, then a few weeks later to put his pistol back in his truck after the "retaliation" period is over.

And from what I can tell at my work place, if you refuse to let them into your vehicle after they have received a complaint, valid or not, you could be terminated on the spot. I have had friends go through this process at work (the above mentioned idiot being one of them) and it's no fun.

Regards,
Eric

MTS2
12-08-2007, 06:08 PM
My personal feeling is that my car is an extension of my home, therefore I am entitled to have a firearm, even in the company's parking lot.

If it comes out of the vehicle or I display it, that's another story.

AlamoCity
12-08-2007, 09:05 PM
This legislation was widely published in the real estate industry some months ago. There have been a few incidents where agents were attacked or assaulted and I think the numbers of armed RE agents is growing since Sept. So don't ask them to lower their commission! :)

Until I get my CCW, this legislation certainly makes it easier to carry when travelling around town. Since Sept, I always bring along some heat when I have my wife and daughter in the car.

T

royke
12-08-2007, 10:33 PM
What about the employer's rights? If it's their property they have the right to decide what is allowed there. Employees have the right to work somewhere else if they don't like their employer's policies. When you demand that the gov't enforce your right to self defense at the expense of someone else's property rights you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. The gov't should have no say in either situation.

Should the employer/property owner have the right to violate other civil rights on his property?

zampilot
12-08-2007, 10:36 PM
And I had thought over the last 20 years that Texas was some big time pro gun state. Wrong, Texas is way behind the times.

cpw
12-08-2007, 11:33 PM
My personal feeling is that my car is an extension of my home, therefore I am entitled to have a firearm, even in the company's parking lot.

If it comes out of the vehicle or I display it, that's another story.

So then if you were to bring your car onto property on which is located the residence in which I live, you think that your rights overrule my rights ??

Coldwood
12-09-2007, 09:43 AM
My personal feeling is that my car is an extension of my home, therefore I am entitled to have a firearm, even in the company's parking lot.

If it comes out of the vehicle or I display it, that's another story.

Here's another situation, not gun related but it speaks to the issue. Our local hospital recently declared the hospital and all of its grounds, including the parking lot, to be "smoke free", no cigarettes. Not an unreasonable decision for a hospital. But they also try to insist that you cannot smoke inside your car. A number of people, visitors not employees, are already pitching a fit about that...what they do in their car is their business...we'll see how that plays out.

tsellati
12-09-2007, 10:20 AM
Here's another situation, not gun related but it speaks to the issue. Our local hospital recently declared the hospital and all of its grounds, including the parking lot, to be "smoke free", no cigarettes. Not an unreasonable decision for a hospital. But they also try to insist that you cannot smoke inside your car. A number of people, visitors not employees, are already pitching a fit about that...what they do in their car is their business...we'll see how that plays out.

This is an interesting scenario. I work at Albany Medical College just a few hours south of you and they have a similar ban on smoking on their property. This restriction, as far as I know, has not been extended to include cars though since I am not a smoker I do not know if people have tried to exploit this loophole or not.

Regarding the broader issue under discussion, it is pretty much a moot point (unless I am mistaken) for those of us that work in academia as I believe it is against Federal law to bring firearms onto the property of a school unless you are a LEO or member of a security force tasked with operating on the premises.

Tim

DCman
12-09-2007, 10:35 AM
I live in GA. &, despite what some may think I carry in my car. My employer has never asked to search anyones car & most of the other guys here carry in their cars also. Some carry several. Has anyone ever had an employer tell them to allow their car to be searched?

7.62x54r
12-09-2007, 11:26 AM
Should the employer/property owner have the right to violate other civil rights on his property?

Civil rights do not extend onto private property that you enter voluntarily, other than the basic rights not to be enslaved or harmed physically of course.

The occasional cries on the forums of "censorship" and "restriction of free speech" come to mind. Just as you cannot say whatever you want under free speech rights at Gunboards, you have no 2nd ammendment right to bear arms on private property if the owner choses not to allow it.

Coldwood
12-09-2007, 01:48 PM
Civil rights do not extend onto private property that you enter voluntarily, other than the basic rights not to be enslaved or harmed physically of course.

The occasional cries on the forums of "censorship" and "restriction of free speech" come to mind. Just as you cannot say whatever you want under free speech rights at Gunboards, you have no 2nd ammendment right to bear arms on private property if the owner choses not to allow it.

I think this is quite true, but there are variations here. As a property owner, I can post my land against hunting, which I have done due to vandalism. However, if a friend or stranger pulls into my driveway, I'm not going to go out and tell him he can't be there if he has a firearm in his car. I may have a right to do so, but of course I won't...especially since I'm a gun owner. Of course if he starts waving it around, that's a different story.

MTS2
12-09-2007, 03:53 PM
So then if you were to bring your car onto property on which is located the residence in which I live, you think that your rights overrule my rights ??

Generally speaking of commercial property here, as in the workplace.

However, if I have the right to be there and have a gun on or about my person in general, then the answer is yes.

groundbound99
12-09-2007, 03:54 PM
you could do like ive done a few times carry it in your waistband and just keep your mouth shut then nobody knows ... in pa there has been a few articals in the papers about buisness's saying no to conceald carry holders and firearms on the property and the courts upheld some of them and and some they dint all depends on the situations me personally inside the building where people work i wouldnt want somebody carrying but if they leave it in their car im perfectly fine with that

rsc
12-09-2007, 04:24 PM
It's a sticky problem to be sure. I tend to side with allowing a gun owner to keep a gun in their locked car at work. However for me it's a moot point as my job is as a contractor on a military base. It's a federal offense for me to bring a POW on base (outside of a few exceptions), but I'm pretty secure there as well unlike working at somewhere like Kinko's. It's pain to travel hundreds of miles to a new base for a few days/weeks work while legally carrying travel protection, but have to leave it behind to go on base. Like leaving it in a hotel room is safe...at least some places like JRTC let me put a POW up in the base arms room. I can see the point of view of the property owner, but also feel it infringes on my ability to carry legally.

Alakablam
12-10-2007, 06:10 PM
Of course, these businesses and employers are not really worried about a level headed, mature, in control, legally carrying individual, they are worried about the nut cases. So they are on the right track, just make it illegal to have any weapon on the premises (legally carried or otherwise) and there will be no bad guns there to hurt people.

Just cross reference Virginia Tech to see how absolutely flawless this reasoning is.

It seems it all rests on whether your property is still your property once it is positioned on someone else's property. Should the business owners carry this to the next logical step, past my personal vehicle be subject to search (and maybe impoundment?/seizure?), then this leads to the clothes on my back. Can't you just see the head of HR walking about the department, billy club in hand, "OK, employee #1986788, get up against that wall and assume the position. You have the responsibility to submit silently, anything you say will be held against you at your next review, if you make it to another one."

Interesting to see that our resident anarchist is so happy to have big business tell him what he can and can't do - MUCH better than big gov't. telling him, for sure.

7.62x54r
12-10-2007, 06:50 PM
Of course, these businesses and employers are not really worried about a level headed, mature, in control, legally carrying individual, they are worried about the nut cases. So they are on the right track, just make it illegal to have any weapon on the premises (legally carried or otherwise) and there will be no bad guns there to hurt people.

Just cross reference Virginia Tech to see how absolutely flawless this reasoning is.

It seems it all rests on whether your property is still your property once it is positioned on someone else's property. Should the business owners carry this to the next logical step, past my personal vehicle be subject to search (and maybe impoundment?/seizure?), then this leads to the clothes on my back. Can't you just see the head of HR walking about the department, billy club in hand, "OK, employee #1986788, get up against that wall and assume the position. You have the responsibility to submit silently, anything you say will be held against you at your next review, if you make it to another one."

Interesting to see that our resident anarchist is so happy to have big business tell him what he can and can't do - MUCH better than big gov't. telling him, for sure.

You don't get it. Certainly I wouldn't be happy working for an employer as you describe and neither would anyone else. That's exactly why employers typically don't act that way. Everyone would leave and their competitor would hire them at lower wages to work in a friendlier atmosphere. The trouble with gov't is you don't have the option, at least at reasonable cost, of quitting and finding another one. As long as there's competition, whether for customers or employees, business will behave reasonably or face bankruptcy. There is no competition for gov't and it's "customers" are captive so it can behave however it wants to up to the point that we shoot back. These days that point is pretty extreme.

I don't want anyone using the power of gov't to force their will on me, so I can't in good conscious use it to force my will on anyone else, no matter how "good" it would be for society in general.

cpw
12-11-2007, 12:23 AM
Generally speaking of commercial property here, as in the workplace.

However, if I have the right to be there and have a gun on or about my person in general, then the answer is yes.

There is no right to be on private property.

Charley1
12-11-2007, 07:57 AM
For you Texas boys out there, don't believe everything you read about HB1815. Many DAs in various locations have publicly stated they will continue to prosecute for carrying weapon in your vehicle if you do not have a CHL, and "let the courts decide". If you live in Harris, Travis, or Dallas county, I would be very careful indeed. I cannot afford to be a test case, and most others cannot afford it, either.

Most of the confusion in the past has had to do with the so called 'traveling' defense. State law stated that "traveling" is a defense to unlawful carrying of a firearm. Problem was, a defense is just that. You would still be arrested, charged, and arraigned, and still have to go to trial. The fact that the state legislature never defined "traveling" in a legal sense didn';t help, either. Every jurisdiction and judge could interpret traveling as he or she saw fit.

The new law is an attempt to bring order out of decades of chaos. It is a good start, but only a start.

BTW, in my opinion, Pretty Hair Perry had little or nothing to do with this legislation.

singleshotcajun
12-11-2007, 08:13 AM
He shore does have some purtee hare.

cpw
12-11-2007, 08:14 AM
Kentucky has a good statute which does not relate to the CHL licenses.

By explicit statute, a person is allowed to carry a loaded - cocked pistol in the unlocked glove compartment of the car. This statute was enacted about 20 years before Kentucky adopted the CHL permit system.

Kind of hard for any prosecuting attorney to give a different meaning to the statue.

Have to be careful, though, when you leave the state.

singleshotcajun
12-11-2007, 08:24 AM
I moved to Texas from Mississippi, I was used to the law stating that your vehicle is an extension of your home. Mississippi is the most 2nd amendment freindly stated I know of.