AustinNative04 wrote:TexasTornado wrote:
Except for that pesky line that states you can't exclude an LTC Holder on criminal trespass simply for having a weapon.
I think I’m following your point—but correct me if I’m missing it. I recognize that this is park land, and generally speaking, a government entity couldn't exclude an LTC from a park solely for having a lawful firearm.
But, in this situation, Zilker Park is temporarily under the control of a private entity for purposes of the festival. Remember, access is controlled with fences and gates. I believe the LTC would be excluded for violating the terms and conditions of the license--terms set by the private entity, not the City.
Uh...no. PC §30.06/07 doesn't deal exclusively with signage; they define under what conditions a license holder commits an offense by carrying under GC 411. That includes descriptions of both written and oral notification. Item (e) under both sections is quite explicit:
PC §30.06/07(e) wrote:
It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
Makes no legal difference whatsoever what C3 does: fence, wanding, x-ray machines, a town crier shouting "no guns" every 30 seconds. The property is owned by a governmental entity and the law cannot be placed in abeyance because a commercial entity has temporarily rented, leased, or come to some other arrangement with that governmental entity.
Unless Zilker Park is on the grounds of a school or educational institution, or within 1,000 feet of a location designated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as a place of execution, there are, IMHO, no legal grounds upon which valid LTC holders can be excluded. C3's
legal option would be to move the festival to property that is
not owned by a governmental entity.
The entity at fault here would be the City of Austin. I do not live in Austin and have no dog in this hunt. But if I
did live in Austin and wanted to attend this festival, I would do exactly as has been recommended: first file an inquiry/complaint with the municipal government then, when no useful response is forthcoming, gather evidence at get it to the Attorney General post haste. Won't help this year, but may stop the nonsense in forthcoming years.
You brought up KP-108. That request (RQ-0097-KP) specifically dealt with agencies with offices located on land owned by a city, and those agencies "are the only entities located on the specific properties in question, that no governmental offices are located on the properties..." The request and resultant opinion dealt with two issues: GC §411.209 and civil penalties for improper restriction of licensed handgun carriers, and PC §30.06/07 about whether whether LTC holders can be excluded from entry.
As to the first part, one thing that AG Paxton writes is:
Section 411.209 does not address whether a private entity, including an independent nonprofit entity, may provide notice to license holders that the carrying of handguns is prohibited in its offices. If a private entity is operating jointly with a governmental entity or has been hired by the governmental entity to perform certain governmental functions, fact questions could arise about which entity effectively posted a notice prohibiting the carrying of guns. However, under the facts you describe, the private, nonprofit entity appears to have an arms-length agreement to lease city property and is not otherwise affiliated with the city.
I'd posit that an annual festival, that occurs only six days per year, held on the grounds of an active, public, municipal park and whose website states, "Thanks to our partnership with the Austin Parks Foundation, ACL Fest fans have contributed more than $20 million towards the improvement of Zilker Park as well as parks all across the city," is in no way operating offices on this public land, or operating at an "an arms-length agreement" with the city.
As to the matter of the ability to deny entrance to the government-owned property, AG Paxton closes the opinion with:
When construing statutes, courts recognize that the words the Legislature chooses are "the surest guide to legislative intent." When possible, courts will discern legislative intent from the plain meaning of the words chosen, and only when words are ambiguous will courts "resort to rules of construction or extrinsic aids." The plain language of subsections 30.06(e) and 30.07(e) make an exception if the property on which the license holder carries a gun "is owned or leased by a governmental entity." These statutes make no exception to that exception for property owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity, and to conclude that carrying a handgun on such property is prohibited would therefore require reading language into the statute beyond what the Legislature included.