TX Law: Does "premises" apply to private property?

[Acme]

Okay, I'm hoping that some of you lawyerly types out there can point me in the right direction on this. My co-workers and I have been going round and round on this.

Here's the situation:

I work for a very large private company at their headquarters location in Texas. The campus on which I work is quite large and is made up of multiple buildings. Due to the nature of our business and the sensitivity of some of the things on the campus, the entire campus has perimeter security in the form of a fence running all the way around it with restricted access entrances. (On the off chance that you happen to know what company I'm taking about, please don't state it in this thread.)

When I started to work here five years ago, each entrance to each building on the campus had an improperly-worded/improperly-formatted sign stating that weapons could not be brought into the building. The company also had some corporate policies about weapons, but did not address the issue of concealed carry. Even though I am a CHL holder, I do not carry into any of the buildings, but I have always left my carry piece in the car.

A few months ago some signs quietly appeared at each of the campus entrances with a properly-worded/properly-formatted 30.06(c)(3)(A) sign prohibiting carry by license holders on the property. I didn't even notice the signs until one of my co-workers (also a CHL holder, as many of us here are) pointed them out to me.

My first reaction was that the definition of "premises" in section 46.035(f)(3) would apply here. It says: " 'Premises' means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include and public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."

But if you read the 30.06 section that talks about private property, nowhere does it use the term "premises". It only refers to "property". Which leads me to believe that one would be in violation of the law if one were to drive onto the campus with a concealed handgun, even if one just left the concealed handgun in their car while they entered the building to work. However, several of my co-workers are convinced that the "premises" definition applies here and that the driveways and parking garages are excluded.

I've searched the Attorney General's opinions on the subject and they all seem to just miss this issue. If I can't find anyone who knows definitively then I'm going to contact my state representative and ask her to request an opinion from the AG on this issue (since I can't request an opinion directly).

Any thoughts?

TIA,
Acme

 

[TCD]

The best advice is to ask a quailty lawyer in your state...


It's probably the safest way to getting a straight and correct answer

 

[tiberius]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV....

....but my understanding of the 30.06 statute is that it applies to the building itself. You said that the sign is posted on the building entrance, not at the parking lot entrance. You have not violated the "no trespassing" sign (which is what a 30.06 sign is) since you have not breached the doors that it "protects". You should be legal to have your gun in the parking lot.

Of course, your employer can still fire you if they have a no weapons policy on company property.

 

[rock jock]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but my answer is based on what I have read and heard, not on THR, but rather on the TSRA webpage and policy memos from the AG's office and my own local DA on the radio.


If the 30.06 sign is at the front gate, it applies to the entire facility surrounded by that gate. If at the door to specific building only, it applies to that bldg.

However, tiberius is correct, they can and probably will fire you because their intent (as they see it) is to keep firearms out period.

Now, were you to keep the gun in your car and a fellow employee went bezerk with a gun and you retrieved yours from your car and ended his/her rampage, you would be discovered and probably fired for violating policy. Two points, however: 1) you would still be alive, making you eligible to find other employment, and 2) you may have case against said employer for not adequately protecting you in the first place, thus necessitating your own means of self-defense. In Texas, you might even win with the latter.

 

[Deavis]

This exact situation was brought up in my CHL class and the instructor was emphatic that even though the parking lot may be private property, your car is your property. Thus, you are well within the law to leave your weapon in the car since you cannot be trespassing in your own vehicle.

Just like going to a hospital with 30.06 signs up in the parking entrances, they mean nothing on the premises, only in the building. It is worth noting that I cannot find a good definition of property but check this out from the AG's office...

LO 97-079(RQ-916) Request from Mr. Andrew
Sansom, Executive Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith
School Road, Austin, Texas 78744, concerning applicability of criminal trespass
statute, sec.30.05 of the Penal Code, to actions of persons in boat in
public water over submerged private property.

SUMMARY A person boating in public waters
over submerged private property who beaches the boat, anchors it, or ties
it to a private duck blind without leaving the boat has not thereby intruded
his entire body onto private property, and therefore has not committed the
offense of criminal trespass as defined by sec.30.05 of the Penal Code.

LO 97-080(ID# 39747) Request from the Honorable
Jack Skeen, Smith County Criminal District Attorney, Smith County Courthouse,
Tyler, Texas 75702, clarification of Letter Opinion Number 97-77.


Both a boat and car should qualify as vehicles according to
(from 30.01)
(3) "Vehicle" includes any device in, on, or by which any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in the normal course of commerce or transportation, except such devices as are classified as "habitation."

Thus, until you step out of your car you are not intruding your entire body onto the private property according to
(from 30.05)
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.

Maybe that helps?

 

[Acme]

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- the new 30.06 signs are placed appropriately at each entrance to the CAMPUS. Meaning that you see them from your car as you enter the gates to the campus. The signs on the specific buildings are no longer there.

Deavis - I understand your point about the hospital, but hospitals are specifically addressed in the law using the term "premises" (see the section I quoted above for details on the word "premises"). So a hospital, school. amusement park, or one of a few other places that are specifically mentioned in the law would unfortunately not be analogous to my situation.

I hadn't considered the "car" as my private property angle. One of my co-workers mentioned something like that but I didn't understand it quite like you said it. I'll look into the statutes you've cited. Thanks!

rock jock - You hit on another point that I forgot to bring up earlier. I wonder if my company is exposing itself to any legal liability not just if someone shows up at the office and starts shooting, but if I get into a situation on my way to or from work. If their policies and signage are specifically precluding me from being able to even have a gun in my car while on the campus then are they also, by extension, insisting that I not be armed on my drive to or from work? (And believe me, there's no way I could park elsewhere and walk to the campus -- it just isn't feasible.)

 

[Deavis]

Acme - My point in mentioning the hospitals is that some of the garages have 30.06 signs posted on them, just like your work. If the garage at a hospital is not considered 30.06 protected (it is private property in many instances) then your work parking lot cannot be considered protected either. You see the parallel? However, since that parallel is not specifically made, I gave you the AG's opinion that as long as you do not step out of your vehicle, your private property, then you can not be considered trespassing.

Pretty crappy that the AG won't answer civilian questions because that means we have to break the law to learn it. Funny, ignorance isn't a defense but it is a condition the AG perpetrates by not answering our questions. Especially since we pay his salary!

btw, now I know why I couldn't use my normal screename on this site! lol

 

[Art Eatman]

In the early days of CHL in Texas, when various sorts of "No Guns!" signs went up, quite a few lawyers publicly stated that the signs meant that the owners of the property or business thereby assumed full civil liability if a customer came to harm from violence.

I've not heard of any AG Opinion, nor have there been any court suits, SFAIK.

The employer and his agents have no right to search an employee's car, regardless of their control of the premises. (If an employee commits some crime, on premises, the police may have grounds for a search of the employee's car if it's on the premises.)

I'm not a lawyer, but some info on various laws has been "out there" for a long time.

Art

 

[Zak Smith]

The employer and his agents have no right to search an employee's car, regardless of their control of the premises. (If an employee commits some crime, on premises, the police may have grounds for a search of the employee's car if it's on the premises.)

They can still fire you for whatever reason they want, including refusing to let them search your car.

-z

 

[MacPelto]

Pretty crappy that the AG won't answer civilian questions because that means we have to break the law to learn it. Funny, ignorance isn't a defense but it is a condition the AG perpetrates by not answering our questions. Especially since we pay his salary!

Actually, he is forbidden by law from giving you his opinion, unless you're on the list.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/go/go0040200.html#top

 

[Acme]

Thanks for the ideas and thoughts, everyone.

There is an AG opinion out there that comes CLOSE to answering this particular question, but it seems to skirt the issue just barely. Maybe I'm asking too much, but I want to read something that either says "when referring to a private place of business, the word 'premise' means exactly the same thing as it does when it refers to a church, a hospital, or an amusement park" or "when an employer places a 30.06 sign at the entrance of a private business, it means that an employee cannot carry a concealed weapon anywhere beyond the sign, including in the employee's car." Just tell me one way or the other so I know whether to be relieved or start lobbying for a change.

Yes, it stinks that I can't ask the AG directly for an opinion. As was pointed out above, the law says that only people in certain positions can request an opinion. I guess that prevents the AG's office from getting flooded with unvetted requests. The good news that I learned today is that my district representative sits on the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, which is the committee that oversees anything to do with the Department of Public Safety (who administers the CHL in Texas). And a legislative committee is one of the legal requestors. So I'll either give her office a call or craft an email to her with the details of my question and ask her to forward it as a request for opinion to the AG's office. If you folks would care to hear the answer, I'd be glad to post it back here. But I bet it will take a long time to hear back, assuming I ever do.

 

[Deavis]

Definitely post back if you ever get an opinion out of them, I would like to hear it.

I understand that the law says the AG can't answer my questions but, honestly, what sort of law is that? Our governement passes laws and expects us to follow them but is unwilling to clarify a law they wrote? We are held accountable for the law despite not completely understanding it.

In other words, they wrote a vague and open law so that they could administer the punishment as they see fit. You can't outlaw being homeless but you can outlaw camping under a bridge... You, a taxpayer and the power behind the governemnt shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to understand the laws. They should be simple and clear cut so there is no question as to what the law means. Give me a break, what ever happened to the government being for us? sigh...

sorry, I got excited. LEt us know about your results!

 

[rock jock]

I don't know if this would enter into the equation or not, but the aforementioned examples where 30.06 signs are posted at the entrances to parking garages and such are areas with public access. i.e., you can come and go as you please. My thinking here is that simply being in a public-access garage would not seem to obligate you to any greater restrictions than driving down a road, even if the public-access area is private property. However, the fact that your business has restricted access means you must be "invited", so to speak, and it may be that as a condition of that invitation you remain unarmed.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I am not sure if Deavis TPW boat example works in this case as waterways, lakes, and such also fall under federal jurisdiction.

As for the "premises" issue, 30.06 do NOT just apply to the interior of buildings in regard to private property. Most businesses choose to post 30.06 on their buildings as they do have public access property that isn't controlled by gates or guards and they usually don't have problems with guns left secured in vehicles, especially if they don't know about them. Said guns do not pose any issue with persons working inside the businesses.

With that said, however, as private property, they have the rights to preclude guns from ALL of their property, including parking areas. As an employee, they have the right to not allow a CHL holder to carry onto their property, 30.06 sign or not. Rock Jock is correct on this.

ALSO, the private company or individual owning/leasing private property has rights. Just because you have a CHL does not give you the right to violate another's rights by carrying a gun on the other's property if they don't wish it.

As for your car being private property, sure enough, it is. And while it may be your private property, it is not your private premises and is NOT considered an extension of your home or premises as is the case in other states. If you choose to carry your weapon in the car, the when driving into work where 30.06 is posted at the gate or where you have been informed (such as in a policy or employee manual, or by verbal instruction by company owner or manager) that you can't bring guns onto the property, then you violate trespass laws and likely your conditions for employment.

ACME, have you had your CHL class? If so, then you would know that you don't go to the AG for questions concerning CHL, but DPS, the issuing agency.

 

[HankB]

As a matter of interest, here's a link to the text of a letter written by legal counsel for the Texas Building Owner's and Manager's Association regarding the legal advisability of posting PC30.06 signs:

http://www.tsra.com/boma_letter.htm

 

[Leatherneck]

Don't know if this is relevant or not, but you should know whether or not the property in question is actually GOCO (Gov't-Owned, Contractor-Operated). If it is (like many Defense contractor plants) then it's Federal property and you risk Federal prosecution if caught possessing a gun there.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[Acme]

Double Naught Spy - Yes, of course I've taken a CHL class. Additionally I've probably spent a lot more time poring over the related rules and the law than the average CHL holder. In response to your concern, I'm not going to the AG for a question about a CHL. I'm asking the AG to give an interpretation of the criminal statute. There's a difference.

For what it's worth, my co-workers and I have called the DPS many times on this issue. Supposedly you can call there and you are talking to an actual attorney that works for the DPS in the CHL department and they can answer your questions. But all they will do is cite the law to you. If you ask a clarifying question, such as mine, they will say, "I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to give an opinion on how your situation fits with the law." So you ask the inevitable question, "Who CAN give me that opinion?" and they'll tell you that only the AG can issue opinions on matters of criminal statute.

I believe that Double Naught Spy and rock jock are probably going to end up being correct on their interpretations of the law here. As much as I hate it, I happen to share that interpretation -- that the company can indeed prevent me from bringing a concealed handgun past the gates and into the parking lot even if I'm just leaving it in my car for the day. But I have intelligent co-workers who have pored over it and disagree with me. Hence my desire for an AG opinion.

 

[mec]

The law states the owner of a property can create a violation of PC 30-06 by posting parking lots and other outside property with the legal sign.

One interpretation about the applicability of the criminal trespass statute ( 30-05 ) indicates that you are not tresspassing if you have a right to be on the property- as an employee. This is a informal opinion and you will never get a dps attorney to validate it. It might be a good defense if you ended up in court.

Of course the law also gives employers the right to forbid employees to carry their guns on the premises of their business. Not a violation but you have no legal recourse if they fire you.

 

[CatsDieNow]

I work for "that company". No guns even in parked vechicles on their property. I hear they do occasional car searches and people get canned because of it.

The chance of getting caught is miniscule, but since I like to continue to recieve a paycheck, I follow the rules and leave mine at home. It's a choice I made when I decided to work there.

I don't think they can legally prevent you from doing it, but they can sure fire your butt in a hurry if they find out.

 

[Acme]

Of course the law also gives employers the right to forbid employees to carry their guns on the premises of their business. Not a violation but you have no legal recourse if they fire you.

Right, so now define "premises" for me. Using the definitions in section 46.035(f)(3) as a guide, "premises" specifically excludes parking lots, garages, driveways, etc. Is that the definition of premises you're using?

You're starting to see the point of my question now?

The reality is that I'm not so worried about getting fired as I am of breaking a law that lands me in jail. Fired I can deal with, but I'm not willing to risk jail.

 

[one-shot-one]

$0.02

if your going to leave it in the car anyway have a lock box mounted in the car, and refuse any request to open it.
should "they" break in to it to find your gun the counter suit for destruction of property would probably back off some of the problems.
I work for a simular company and a couple of us ccw's have told our wives that if any harm comes to us because we were not armed at work or to and from because I ride the bus and have no car to leave a gun in, to sue...........

 

[Smoke]

If I have an aope parking lot in front of my building with no fence gates or other means of controlling access, that makes the lot "public access".

If I put up a chainlink fence and have a guarded gate it is no longer public access.

If I put up a 30.06 sign at the entrance to my north pasture, you can't carry there, even though there is no building on the place.

I think DNS is on target here.

What it boils down to is this, you ignore the sign and risk a court case, losing your CHL, and termination or you leave the gun at home and don't assume those risks.

DPS probably won't issue an opinion on the situation. AG won't either. You get to be the test case if caught.

Your choice. Weigh the options carefully.

Smoke

 

[Acme]

Smoke,

Actually, I've heard that there is a test case currently going on somewhere in Central Texas with a woman who works for a telecommunications company and has exactly the same situation. Something about she works nights and carries in her car for "to-and-from safety purposes" even though she works on a secured campus with 30.06 signs at the entrances. Apparently she's aiming to make it a precedent-setting case in favor of people in our situation. I wish I could find more information on her because I'd love to follow that case and see how it ends up. I'll do some googling and see if I can find anything.

 

[mec]

Premise is a "building or a portion of a building not to included parking lots, parking garages, sidewalks public or private." Nevertheless, a property owner can post external property with a 30-06 sign.

The only place I've seen a parking lot posted is at one of the planned parenhod clinics in Waco, Texas.

 

[CatsDieNow]

Well, apparently, I work for the other large company in the area.

Same deal though...mine posts a no weapons sign. It is not the 30.06 sign, nor does it meet the requirements (not in Spanish) to fall under the statute. I think that legally I could carry there, but practically I am prohibited because I want to stay employed.

I think the worst they could do is ask me to leave (permanently in this case).