TexasCHLforum.com

jbarn wrote: And on a second note regarding guns shows, I recently had a conversation with another instructor and this was the main idea;

Why do I need a CHL to carry a handgun? Because Penal Code (PC) 46.02 makes it unlawful to carry a handgun unless on my premises, premises under my control, motor vehicle or watercraft. Do I need a CHL to carry a handgun on or about my person at a gun show? Clearly not. People carry all sorts of handguns at gun shows. I suspect due to PC 46.15 (b) (3) (lawful sporting event) or the case law regarding gun stores, etc.

Regardless, no CHL is required to carry at a gun show. A person carrying a handgun at a gun show is not carrying under the authority of a CHL. None is required. Therefore, 30.06 does not apply.

My initial reaction to that was it must be wrong. Try that and see what happens. But once I sat back and thought about it, I realized he is right. Isn't he?
TIA

Carrying a loaded, concealed weapon at a gun show WOULD need to be under the authority of a CHL, as far as I know. Many people are carrying unloaded, locked out (zip tied usually), unconcealed weapons at a gun show. The rules for an unloaded weapon are far different than for loaded weapons. Apologize if I missed something here, but how would you carry (loaded, concealed) at a gun show outside the authority of a CHL?

Sporting events are specifically ruled non-carry zones for CHLs. The only thing I can think of close to that is the verbage about being allowed to have a loaded weapon if you are a participant in a shooting competition, but that's not even close to a gun show. (Apologize for being too lazy to look up the pertinent sections.)

Can anyone help me out with interpretation of GC411.203? It states:

This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business.

As I understand, this provision applies to the employer/employee relationship, but that would be more clear if the word "persons" was changed to "employees." Someone could attempt to use this as meaning that any employer can prohibit the public from carrying a concealed weapon into their establishment under 411.203 and therefore not be subject to restrictions in 30.06, such as the government property restriction. My argument against this would be that if 411.203 was intended to have that meaning, there would be no need for the entire 30.06 section, and it would conflict with 30.06(e) (restriction on gov't property posting 30.06).

Is my interpretation and logic correct and are there other or better arguments as to why 411.203 cannot mean "the public" when it says "persons"?

Thanks in advance,
SlowD

Thanks for the reply Jim. I agree with your interpretation of the date, and appreciate the perspective that the city attorney would probably dodge. The issue with the county DA is separate and deals with an earlier post re: Bexar County Tax Assessor-Collector being posted. She may still dodge the issue, but it won't be because of this San Antonio code.

BTW, on the way home, I noticed a sign for a city councilman running for election. I think now is the time to get educated and start making some hay for candidates who will stand up for the rights of citizens. It may be futile, but at the very least, I'll know I've done my best to my objective, and at the best, I might make a difference. Any other San Antonians on here who want in on this?

That is a great link. Made me go looking for San Antonio code stuff and found this:

Sec. 21-157. Carrying of weapons, including concealed handguns, on city-owned premises prohibited; posting of notice.
(a) It is the intent of the city council to prohibit any person other than a commissioned security officer employed by the city and licensed peace officers from carrying or possessing weapons including concealed handguns on city-owned premises, including city-owned buildings, parking garages, lots, and other parking areas but excluding city-owned or operated public parks, streets and sidewalks.
(b) It is the intent of the city council that the term weapon shall include a firearm, handgun, club, illegal knife, knife, and any prohibited weapon listed in Texas Penal Code Section 46.05(a) and have the same meaning as said items are defined in Section 46.01, Texas Penal Code.
(c) The city council directs the city manager, or his designee to post the appropriate signs and such other notice, in accordance with Section 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code (the Criminal Trespass Law), to carry out the city council's above-stated intent.
(d) The city manager is authorized to take all steps reasonable and necessary to deny entry or continued presence on city-owned premises to all such persons possessing weapons including concealed handguns, including prosecution of such violators for the offense of criminal trespass.
(Res. No. 95-52-66, 12-21-95)

So, other than quoting the wrong section (30.05 vs. the nearer to applicable 30.06), and also going against 30.06(e) which makes an exception to 30.06 for any government owned or leased buildings and therefore going directly against the state legislature, which as I understand, is not able to be pre-empted by local jurisdictions, they're fine.

On another front, I was about to contact some county people (DA, etc.) about some inappropriate postings on government buildings, but not sure what to do with this, since the city code is instructing at least city (if not county) agents to inappropriately post their locations. Sheesh. Can anyone provide me some direction here?

Thanks,
SlowDave

Went to the Northwest Office (6812 Bandera Road) of the Bexar County Tax Assessor-Collector today and they are posted at the front door. Looks like it meets the requirements, other than it might not be fully 1" letters, but close. Also has a gun-busters image in the middle, between the english and spanish text, but I don't guess that makes it invalid.

I think I'll write a letter to Sylvia Romo, the tax assessor collector, and see what I can get back. Charles, any news back on your request re: the downtown location?

That's great. Thanks Charles. Let me know if you need more info. I could make the drive back down there with a camera to take a pic and get the source of that letter if you need it. I'd love to hear how this comes out, as I don't normally go to that location.

As to the city rep re: my earlier post about the Growdon Pound, who would be the right person for me to contact on that one?

Thanks!

So, can someone educate me as to the proper office to contact with regards to these issues for city and county owned property? I'm not looking for names, but general titles, like "City Attorney" or "County Sherrif" or something like that.

Thanks in advance!

Actually, re-reading 30.06, it looks like the entire section is voided if the property is owned or leased by a government entity, so even the verbal is non-binding? Of course, forcing the issue here would be really putting yourself out there with a likely visit to the local police station. If they scanned your bag, saw a weapon, and told you to leave, and you told them they don't have the authority to restrict you and attempted to walk on in it... might not be recommended behavior I'm thinking. Thoughts?

So, I guess I'm on a roll. Here's the situation:

I went to the downtown office of the Bexar County (San Antonio) Tax Assessor Collector this afternoon. There was no 30.06 sign on the door or otherwise, but when I went in, there was a metal detector and x-ray (or similar) machine to scan bags. The guy said I needed to scan my backpack (which had my pistol in it). I hesitated, not sure what to do, but didn't want to alarm anyone by turning and heading out the door at that point. The guy scanned it and told me that I couldn't come in with that (at which time he understood my earlier hesitation). I mentioned that there was no sign, and he said there was a letter on the door. On the outside, automatic door, on the stationary portion was a 2-page letter in normal 10-12 pt font. The doors are tinted, and the movable portion has other text written in stick-on letters, so to see this when the door is open (which happens automatically when you walk up), you have to see through 2 tinted pieces of glass one of which has text on it, to read a 2 page letter. The letter does not have any resemblance of the 30.06 prohibition language, but is a record of some Bexar County Court instructing the facility to post (as I recall) "signs in accordance with 30.05 to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons" into this facility. Note that the recommended signage has not been posted.

So, as I understand, this is an area that would fall under 30.06(e) and if they had a 30.06 sign, it would not be binding. In addition, they don't have a 30.06 sign. BUT, they have a metal detector, bag scanner, and that ends up being followed with a verbal notice, which IS binding, right? So what is the out here? It seems to me completely against the spirit of the written law, but might actually have found a loophole. Can I do something about this? Who should I write to or talk with? Recommendations?

The facility in question is responsible for collecting property tax, vehicle registration fees, and performing title transfers and the like. It is definitely not a court or a city council meeting. I don't know if they have the whole building or what else might be contained in this building.

This ticked me off. It seems such an abuse of power and blatant disregard for my rights. Am I off base? I'm interested in recommendations.

Thanks srothstein. Good info (as usual on this board). I hadn't thought of checking tax records to find the official owner of the property. I think I agree. I think I'd be in a pretty strong position in court, being as
1a. The sign does not meet 30.06
1b. Even if it did, it is meaningless on city property
2a. It is not a law enforcement facility (this might be the hardest to prove)
2b. It is definitely not a "secure, non-public" portion of a law enforcement facility.

Of course, I'd rather not go to court, but if people are gonna go fight and die for my rights, I guess I can at least risk going to court.

So yeah, I likely only have to go back one more time and think I'll just carry. Will also try to go at a less risky time than Friday at dusk.

Thanks again!

Commander wrote:Unless there is a court in the city hall, the 30.06 signs are invalid. Governmental entities cannot post 30.06 signs on government owned/leased property.

Can someone give me the reference for this? I believe it, I'd just like to see it in some type of state document for myself and be able to prove it to others.

Thanks!

EDIT****
Found it. Sheesh, PC 30.06 (e) in case anyone else was wondering.

I have a question for the forum here. I went to the United Road Towing Vehicle Storage Facility (aka Growdon Vehicle Storage Facility) here in San Antonio. From their website and the SAPD's relevant webpage, it seems that this is a government facility that is managed by a private company. They had a sign that "This is a police facility" or something to that effect and then a non-30.06 "no guns allowed" sign (including the ghostbuster symbol).

Took me forever to see the relevant code is GC 411.207, dealing with the rights to carry into a police department building and the ability of the police to disarm a CHL holder. I would not consider the area a "nonpublic, secure portion" of anything, seeing as how you just open the door, walk in, and wait in line. And I don't think it really amounts to a "law enforcement facility" either. Without the research though, I was not sure and went back to the car and disarmed (other than my lockblade). Upon reading into this, it looks to me like this is not a binding sign, and that I could in fact, carry into this facility. I would appreciate others' opinions or clarification on this.

This was not a good situation. There are many shady characters hanging around the parking area, no policemen in sight, no metal detectors, and a general unsecured feeling. I did not take pictures of the signs as I was already afraid I may have raised suspicion by going back to my car and didn't want to raise any more. I'd also be interested in recommendations as to what I should do next. If I bring this up to the SAPD or the facility mgmt, do I risk educating them to put in the correct signage? Do you think this is a city-owned facility and therefore cannot be restricted and I should inform them to remove the signs?

Any help appreciated.