TexasCHLforum.com

bigtek wrote:If the signs on government property were neither posted by nor authroized by the government entity then is it a crime to take them down?

Probably criminal mischief. If the lessee sets up a sign that says anything (welcome, get your free beer here, no Glocks, etc.) it's not a given that you have a right to tear it down.

MeMelYup wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: ...
Scott, I know you know the law, but if you really do go through with this, please get some sort of legal representation before going through with it. I would go prepaid because I think it would be much cheaper and would really be a slam dunk for pretty much anyone who managed to pass the bar exam.

And my question: how do you get police to notice you once you get in concealed? Go to bathroom and switch to open carry? Could the company that runs the show ask you to leave because they can deny service to near everyone, and if you refused it would be just regular old trespassing? If they claimed it had nothing to do with your handgun?

...

If I really wanted to push the issue, I'd open carry right up to the entrance, but I think the loophole that they would use is that the show promoters are prohibiting me from carrying "loaded, and not zip tied". I don't believe they could get me on a criminal 30.05 trespass, because the reason for exclusion would be that I was carrying a handgun, and I have a LTC. However, in KP-108 AG Paxton seems to suggest that the right of civil trespass enforcement may still be available to the lessee (show promoter). So they would simply bar my entry.

My intent is really just to be able to carry where it is legal regardless of improperly posted restrictions, rather than become the proverbial "test case" via openly protesting the invalid restriction. So therefore if I manage to conceal and carry into the show, I will simply go about my business (armed). Somebody needs to push the point someday if we want to make progress, but I am not financially/legally prepared to do so, unless some sort of legal foundation wanted to support me.

I don't think that was his intent. What he stated was that he was unable to prosecute a vendor for displaying a 30.06 sign on government property because they are not government.

My reading was more that he couldn't fine a city for allowing the non-government lessee to post the signs. There isn't a legal mechanism to fine private entities for posting the signs, even if they are legally unenforceable (which they are).

locke_n_load wrote: ...
Scott, I know you know the law, but if you really do go through with this, please get some sort of legal representation before going through with it. I would go prepaid because I think it would be much cheaper and would really be a slam dunk for pretty much anyone who managed to pass the bar exam.

And my question: how do you get police to notice you once you get in concealed? Go to bathroom and switch to open carry? Could the company that runs the show ask you to leave because they can deny service to near everyone, and if you refused it would be just regular old trespassing? If they claimed it had nothing to do with your handgun?

...

If I really wanted to push the issue, I'd open carry right up to the entrance, but I think the loophole that they would use is that the show promoters are prohibiting me from carrying "loaded, and not zip tied". I don't believe they could get me on a criminal 30.05 trespass, because the reason for exclusion would be that I was carrying a handgun, and I have a LTC. However, in KP-108 AG Paxton seems to suggest that the right of civil trespass enforcement may still be available to the lessee (show promoter). So they would simply bar my entry.

My intent is really just to be able to carry where it is legal regardless of improperly posted restrictions, rather than become the proverbial "test case" via openly protesting the invalid restriction. So therefore if I manage to conceal and carry into the show, I will simply go about my business (armed). Somebody needs to push the point someday if we want to make progress, but I am not financially/legally prepared to do so, unless some sort of legal foundation wanted to support me.

crazy2medic wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:Am I the only one that sees this as some kinda challenge?

I was going to go to Ft Worth gun show a couple weeks ago to find out, but never got around to it.

So next gun show we meet and try and beat their system?

I am actually willing to do this and I'm fine posting about it here on a public forum. My guess on what will happen is: We will walk past the entrance concealed, pay for our ticket and go into the show. There are enough loopholes in 411.209 that if I tried to open carry I would undoubtedly be denied entrance without any consequences to the City. I've already been through this at Cowboys Stadium. On the other hand, I have carried (concealed) into one of my county annex buildings that was posted (wrongly) right past the Deputy Constable on duty and into the County Clerk's (not court clerk) office...

I wrote the original post for this topic 7 months ago and I stand by what I said. In fact, I now agree with some other posters that 411.209 as interpreted by General Paxton has caused MORE signs to go up on public property.

nightmare69 wrote: ...
What are you talking about? Every arrest has to be a legitimate charge out of the penal code and all my arrests were upheld. You can't just make up charges if that is what your hinting at. Anyways, that's the last time I respond to your inmature comments. Adiós.

I'll mail you your grammar police badge this week.

You were the one warning everyone not to be casual about walking past the Ft Worth police while armed at a gun show on City property. Well, that isn't a class C offense. So are you in the habit of arresting people for made up offenses, or not? And what does your county sheriff say after the 10th class C you bring in for booking? Do they even book them, knowing that a class C is a "no jail offense". I mean I guess I could see PI, or Disorderly, but don't the Sheriff's Deputies get tired of your wasting their time? And is there even bond for a class C How long will they hold them?

nightmare69 wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Be careful with the attitude of, "it's only a class C so you probably won't take a ride." Depending on the officer and taking into consideration it's a gun related offense, I'll predict there is at least a fair chance of going downtown.

If any officers are enforcing unenforceable signs on city property, take it up with the dept, city attorney, or even the Sheriff. The officers are not attorneys and will enforce whatever regulations they are told by those paying them the overtime to be there.

My wife got a "rife to jail" for a class C. She has a nasty habit of throwing her cigarette butts out the window of her car. A cop saw her and pulled her over for a class c littering charge. BUT then Informed her that she is being charged for a felony, attempted ARSON! After she was in the car he told her that the cigarette butt hit his car and could have burned him. He was going to charge her with Arson, distruction of city property and attempted assault of a police officer! No, this is not true, she got a letter in the mail not to litter and a Don't mess with Texas trashbag. But thanks for reading what COULD have likely happened.

In my LE career I've made about 10 arrests on class C offences. One less than 2 weeks ago. It's not that uncommon.

Did you make them for offenses that were not an offense?

nightmare69 wrote:Be careful with the attitude of, "it's only a class C so you probably won't take a ride." Depending on the officer and taking into consideration it's a gun related offense, I'll predict there is at least a fair chance of going downtown.

If any officers are enforcing unenforceable signs on city property, take it up with the dept, city attorney, or even the Sheriff. The officers are not attorneys and will enforce whatever regulations they are told by those paying them the overtime to be there.

If you "take the ride" for what is clearly not an offense, you will have a better chance should you choose to bring a civil action against the city. It's different than speeding, which IS illegal. I'm not sure why Ft. Worth is putting their officers in this position, but unless they're wanding/frisking people, what's going to happen? Actually what they could do is arrest everyone with a handgun at all and let the judge sort it out. Having a LTC, or being a cop, is only a Defense to Prosecution against 46.02, whereas in 30.06/7:

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

Because this exact language is not used in 46.15 it has been ruled that all the exceptions are Defenses. So go ahead, be a cop, or get a LTC...you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride, right?

crazy2medic wrote:Am I the only one that sees this as some kinda challenge?

I was going to go to Ft Worth gun show a couple weeks ago to find out, but never got around to it.

locke_n_load wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I really stopped worrying about 30.06 signs on government property when they were made inapplicable. Then when 30.06 was made a class C misdemeanor I worried much less about "taking the ride" (to the mailbox to mail in my request for a jury trial on a $200 no jail ticket). The places that still affect me are where they actively screen/wand/pat down despite being government owned. I also believe KP108 is being interpreted much more broadly than the wording of the opinion supports. I expect little change so I will continue to actively ignore the "intent" of inapplicable signs whenever I can get away with it. I am not averse to trying to conceal past the screening in these cases, but so far they've hit on my handgun and I had to do the walk of shame back to my car and write a complaint to the city.

Yep. Can't carry into concerts on city property if they deny entry. Very infuriating. And now zoo schools and museum schools will continue to post signage that could result in a felony if you were successfully convicted for carrying on the grounds where a school sponsored activity is taking place.

Technically a class A misdemeanor for a school sponsored activity and felony for the "premises" of a school.

hovercat wrote:No.

OK do they frisk you or wand you? Or can you walk by without checking in? And if you do so and are found out, what would they do?

I really stopped worrying about 30.06 signs on government property when they were made inapplicable. Then when 30.06 was made a class C misdemeanor I worried much less about "taking the ride" (to the mailbox to mail in my request for a jury trial on a $200 no jail ticket). The places that still affect me are where they actively screen/wand/pat down despite being government owned. I also believe KP108 is being interpreted much more broadly than the wording of the opinion supports. I expect little change so I will continue to actively ignore the "intent" of inapplicable signs whenever I can get away with it. I am not averse to trying to conceal past the screening in these cases, but so far they've hit on my handgun and I had to do the walk of shame back to my car and write a complaint to the city.

tk1700 wrote:I agree with ScottDLS in his original post, "After over a year of GC 411.209 "fines for signs" it looks like it's effectively been useless." I am not going to the FTW gun show this weekend because of the past history of them posting 30.06 and their other ridiculous requirements on LTC holders.

Has anyone been asked to leave an event at at a public building that is posted 30.06/30.07 by a private lessor of the facility because it was discovered they were an LTC holder and CC past their signs? If so, how was the situation handled, by event staff asking person to leave, LE involvement or...? I'm asking because I haven't read about any such incident and am curious to see if it has happened and how it was handled. There has been lots of discussion and speculation on this forum about "what if" but no info on actual incidents.

I haven't been asked to leave, but I was denied entry to Texas Stadium to a non-scholastic, non-professional, event by private security. I complained to the City of Arlington and received a letter from the city attorney saying that it was controlled by Dallas Cowboys. Interestingly this was before KP-108, but that opinion came out a month or so later. However, I didn't complain to the AG, so I can't take blame for KP-108.

BUMP
------
Rather than starting a new topic, I'm bumping my original posted 6 months ago. I still contend that GC 411.209 has had little practical effect. I stand by my original points.

I will also say that other than complaining about it here, voting, and writing a couple of letters to legislators, and one city attorney, I haven't done anything. I am a citizen not a legislator.

rotor wrote:One thing you are not seeing is the threat of sending an AG letter. It got 30.06/07 signs removed from our local gunshow. Then what happens, ND by one of the displayers before the show opened. 12 gauge ND. Not caused by a LTC holder. Three people to the hospital, not serious though.

I heard the Fort Worth Gun Show started posting again after KP-108 came out. Unless they have metal detectors or frisk you before going into public venues, I just ignore the signs and CC. That's why I feel that GC 411.209 has been a bust. The intent was to remove the intimidation by public entities, but now they've just given them an out, not to mention being very slow in addressing those where they did receive complaints. So far all I've heard is Austin City hall and one county building being enforced by AG.

After over a year of GC 411.209 "fines for signs" it looks like it's effectively been useless. To my knowledge no government entity has been fined yet. A couple of cities have taken down unenforceable signs, but most haven't. The State Fair started allowing concealed carry before the law, but this year unilaterally banned open carry without challenge. They cited KP-108 which could just as easily be applied to concealed carry if you follow the logic (or lack thereof).

KP-108 has effectively nullified GC 411.209 for almost all the locations where the law would have made a difference. All the entity controlling the government property has to do is physically prevent you from entering while carrying and there is nothing you can do about it. And KP-108 says they have the right under the law to enforce this "civil trespass" provision. The consolation that you are not breaking a criminal law is really of no consequence as you weren't prior to GC 411.209...

Even the few cases that the AG has taken up, seem to be the ones that are the LEAST clear. I agree that a court being in a multi-purpose building shouldn't prohibit the whole building, but I see a LOT more support for that prohibition than I do for banning open carry at Fair Park.

The Dallas Zoo is an Amusement Park according to AG Paxton, but he can't find support in the law for fining the government for letting a lessee post public property?

Cities continue to post signs on public streets during festivals and threaten to arrest LTC's for carrying. They ignore the definition of "premises" in 46.035 by allowing non-structure public property and streets to be posted with 51% signs. This is of course the "bluff" that "fines for signs" was supposed to address...(i.e. cities posting unenforceable signs)...and we should all note that no one has been arrested yet.

The BEST legislation for LTC in 2015 was the reduction of 30.06 penalty to a class C misdemeanor in most cases. Not because you can break the law and get a lighter penalty, but because you can NOT BREAK THE LAW and have very little chance of being unjustly prosecuted or found guilty...and even if you are WRONGLY found guilty you face a minimal penalty.

"Fines for signs" was a nice idea, but it underestimated the stubbornness of the anti-gun establishment...they just ignore the law and the effort required to enforce it and the strong possibility of it being nullified by a lawless judge render it useless.