TexasCHLforum.com

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 2:00 pm

chamberc wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 12:53 pm Gun ban upheld.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local ... ab09b64378

Not surprised..expected this decision by a Dallas Judge. Democrat Dallas County District Court Judge Emily Tobolowsky.

Paxton shot his case in the foot with his 2016 opinion that found private entities could ban guns on government-leased property as long as the government “has no control over the decision to post such notice.”

No recourse except to not go to the fair and hope that the legislature will address this issue so it is clear.

I think he blew the case by not standing by that decision. It was correct in that it applied the law as written to say they could legally post the property but that the courts would find the ban could not be enforced on government land.

His whole argument this time was that the State Fair was not an independent agency, but was acting as an agent for the city and thus had to obey the city rules.

Now I need to read the actual decision from the judge. Was the ban upheld as legal and enforceable, or was the posting upheld as legal with no mention of whether it could be enforced? The latter might still be correct, but the former would be wrong as a matter of law, IMO. I would almost be willing to bet the judge only ruled on if the posting was allowed or not.

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 10:26 am According to the letter that Paxton sent to City of Dallas, the SFOT is contracted by the city to operate the fair. And he considered KP-0108 in issuing the letter to City of Dallas.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/si ... 0Final.pdf

Through this lease agreement, the City of Dallas authorizes the State Fair of Texas to take control
of the functions of operating the public city park, various city buildings, walkways and sidewalks
contained within the 277 acres over a 24-day period.

To the extent that the State Fair of Texas, as a nonprofit organization, may have considered Texas
Attorney General Opinion KP-0108 (dated August 9, 2016), in making its decision to exclude
license holders from the entirety of the 277-acre Fair Park and all of its buildings, walkways and
sidewalks, such reliance was misplaced in regard to the 277-acre Fair Park.

The big question is: will the Attorney General's office seek judgement to prevent the new policy in time for it to actually matter? And, of course, whether a judge will agree with the City or the AG's office.

The problem I see is that the letter itself, as quoted above, says it is a lease agreement. The lease authorizes the State Fair to take control of the functions of the operation of the property. The way I read this, and not being a lawyer I could be wrong, this is the same as my apartment lease which authorizes me to take control of my apartment. I am not an agent of the complex and I do not see the State Fair as an agent of the city. If it were a contract to run the fair for the city, it would require the State Fair to perform certain actions, such as operating the property and running the fair. That would make them an agent of the city and then they could not post signs.

I do not see any difference between the fairgrounds situation and the offices leased in Stephenville in the opinion. I think Paxton also saw it this way, though I could be wrong and the court saw it this way, in the case of the Fort Worth Zoo.

But i do agree that how far Paxton takes it and when is a major question we need to keep an eye on.

I hate to burst everyone's bubble when it comes to AG Paxton on this, but it is political showboating and will not go anywhere. And he knows this and did this for the votes only.

If you read his official opinion (Opinion KP0108 here) it explains that the city is not responsible for the posting of the signs by a non-profit leasing the land, and that the posted signs are not illegal. It does point out that the property is still excepted from the violation under 30.06/30.07, so the signs are unenforceable.

A possible legal question that MIGHT change my opinion of Paxton on this is if the State Fair organization pays the city for the use of the land (leases the land from the city) or if they are contracted by the city to run the fair (as a contract employee/agent of the city). An agent of the city, even a contracted one, is still governed by the city and it means the city is responsible for the signs. A lessor of the property means the city is not responsible.

Rex B wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 10:46 pm Here is the letter he linked to:

https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/f ... th_Zoo.pdf

This is news to me.

Is the State Fair of Texas a registered non-profit?
And why does this make a difference?

Read the letter carefully. It does not say the signs can be enforced, just that they are not illegally posted. The loophole which they crawl through is that the law making it illegal to post 30.06 signs only applies to the government agency (in this case, the City of Dallas) and not to any other person or organization. If I go post a big 30.06 sign on the fence around the Capitol in Austin, I am not violating the law that says the state cannot post. Of course, my sign has no legal bearing on whether you can carry inside the Capitol or not. This is what the State Fair Association is saying they did.

Obviously, my analogy is slightly flawed because DPS would take down my sign as soon as they saw I posted it, but the legal principal is the same. The State Fair Association can post any sign they want because they are not the government. It doesn't mean that 30.06 applies to anyone because the law is still the same and says it does not apply on state owned land.

RottenApple wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 9:36 am

carlson1 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 11:14 am WELL SPOKE TO INVESTIGATOR JONES TODAY. Well here is the answer. “We don’t know for sure at this time. There have been many who have called our office. It appears that because of the public incident the City of Dallas received a waiver from the AG Office to allow only police and retired Police only to carry there. So if I was you I just wouldn’t carry there and just follow their instructions.”

So much for having a law and a so-called “second amendment AG.”

AG Waivers should be required to be published and displayed at the location where the waiver is in effect.

I would ask what authority the AG has to waive any law.

Rex B wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 8:49 am I am in an email discussion with the KERA reporter who wrote their story on this. Can anyone help me find the stature that prohibits firearms bans on govt/publicly owned property, regardless of what organization is using it at the time?

Penal Code sections 30.06(e) and 30.07(e) specifically say that it is an exception if the property is owned or leased by the government.