TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote: My, time flies when you're having fun, eh?

Perfecto, tempus fugit.

But let's not get too far off topic.

- Jim

Oldgringo wrote:I was involved in the construction of Enron Field and it wasn't a real nice part of town back then. Has the area changed?

Oh, yeah. It's yuppie and tourist heaven now. If you haven't been there in a dozen years, you wouldn't recognize the area.

IIRC, it was originally called the Ball Park at Union Station. Enron had its name on the stadium until Enron went down in flames. Then it became Minute Maid Park.

- Jim

Minute Maid Park in Houston. Sign appears valid. I didn't pull out a ruler—that would be weird (though you can use a U.S. quarter coin to measure an inch).

The physical premises of Minute Maid Park are owned by the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, which is a taxpayer-funded public entity: http://www.houstonsports.org/about/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Professional sporting events are off-limits by statute, of course; but Minute Maid Park is used for many other functions that are not professional sporting events.

I find it hard to believe no one has noticed this in all these years and hundreds of messages. It is on http://texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;,

- Jim

Hi. I think the statute that you are looking for is Texas Penal Code 30.06:

(e) 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.

This statute has been quoted in its entirety many times; but it can be helpful to pinpoint specific clauses.

As others have said, it is not a violation of a law for a city or other entity to post a 30.06 sign on city-owned property. Someone accused of carrying in that place—who has not committed another offence—cannot legally be prosecuted. Of course, this gets back to the cliché "concealed means concealed."

- Jim

The League City annex is run by Galveston County, not League City:

http://www.co.galveston.tx.us/tax_offic ... office.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't seen a county building that is not posted, including places that have nothing to do with courts or statutory government functions. They have been that way for years.

This topic was discussed on page 9 of this thread five years ago: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... ty#p112702" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jimf

The problem with official oppression as a state charge is that the local elected DA has to prosecute it.

Most of this garbage with bogus 30.06 postings is done by local government agencies. If the DA does not actually approve, he or she isn't going to make waves. At best he will tell the cops not to arrest, or to drop the charges.

That is why federal court is usually the place to go for relief from civil rights violations. But we know how sympathetic they are to RKBA issues.

You pretty much have to end up dead or with broken bones to get any relief from that system.

- Jim

Rex B wrote:I would think that the (excessive) fees we pay to exercise a basic right would be sufficient for this

I've pointed out many times that the actual cost of administering the CHL program is far less than the fees that the state collects. It is literally a cash cow.

The money does not go to DPS. It goes into the state treasury. The DPS budget is flat or lower every year.

The only redress in that direction is the legislature and the governor. I do not mean to belittle their efforts to promote the right to keep and bear arms, which have been significant; but they aren't totally honest about where the money goes.

There are a lot of so-called fees that don't go where they were supposed to go. The sporting goods sales tax is a big one that annoys me no end.

- Jim

Rex B wrote:I wish the DPS would take charge of 30.06 signage the way TABC controls the 51% signs.

Everything on earth costs money.

The state has a compelling state interest in regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages (and tobacco products). Enforcement in these areas is funded by taxes and fees on the regulated product or activity.

If you want DPS to enforce something, DPS is going to have to pay for it by increased budget or by transferring funds from some other activity.

It is not illegal to post a sign that says "no guns" in any way, shape, or form that does not conform to the requirements of PC 30.06. It is not illegal for a county or city to have an ordinance that is contrary to LCG 229.001(a)(6). This would include restrictions on CHL holders on government-owned property. The only remedy is for someone who has his rights violated to sue or appeal.

After 15 years, no one has been successfully convicted of violating 30.06, and no one has sued subsequent to an arrest that I know of. Someone who didn't get his law degree by mail order might know better.

- Jim

Our hard-working Texas legislators have created a situation that begs for an appellate ruling.

You have 30.06, which is not applicable to state-owned property, and then you have 46.035(i) which calls for churches, hospitals, and government meetings to be posted with 30.06 signs.

Of course there are state-owned hospitals. Most government meetings are held in government-owned buildings. There are a few state-owned church buildings (namely university chapels).

I have asked many times, along with Clint Eastwood, how lucky do you feel?

- Jim

Pawpaw40 wrote:In Longview, Texas, Good Shepherd Medical Center is posted with a correct sign. The land and buildings are owned by Gregg County, but leased to Good Shepherd. Is the sign enforceable? The emergency room entrance has a metal detector and is staffed by Longview PD.

Ask the police, cuz they're the ones who will make the call. I will be very surprised if they don't tell you that weapons are forbidden on the premises.

This is the same as UTMB Galveston and the Texas Medical Center, both of which are state-owned and operated.

This is one of those situations where you might beat the rap but not the ride, if detected.

- Jim

That handgun sign is about as effective as a "Colored only" bathroom sign. That is, for the folk from Loma Linda, not at all.

Also, Kingwood Medical Center is owned by HCA (a private company) and had nothing to do with cities improperly posting.

Still, you don't want to have a nurse taking your temperature and find your Kimber. Probably there would be a bit of a fuss.

The "No smoking" sign is enforceable. Smoking is bad for your health and very expensive. They make gum and patches to deal with the jitters when you quit.

- Jim

Fibonacci wrote:The Lufkin library has a notice containing a reference to section 30.05, which is the statute on trespassing. Isn't it impossible to trespass at a public building?

It is possible to be charged with trespassing in a public building. A person could enter or hide in the building until after closing hours, enter parts of the building that are not open to the public, or behave in a way that is inappropriate (such as sleeping in a library).

These activities could also result in charges of burglary or disorderly conduct.

Carrying a concealed handgun with a CHL should not result in a 30.05 trespassing charge, but who knows what ignorant or hostile police officers could do? Having a CHL is a defense to prosecution, which is weaker protection than an exception.

- Jim

Timbo55 wrote:The Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery is posted as gun restricted ...

It's federal property, operated by the VA.

It could be argued that open land like that cannot be restricted. The statute that prohibits carrying weapons in federal facilities applies only to buildings (I don't feel like looking it up, but it has been discussed many times here).

Also, how often do mourners at cemeteries get hassled by police of any type?

- Jim

RHenriksen wrote:So... what process is recommended for having a legally unenforceable sign taken down?

I don't know for sure, because I've never done it.

I'd start by writing to the city attorney and explaining the situation. Or if you live in Houston, talk to your city council rep. In the latter case expect to educate them about the issue.

Houston originally would not allow CHL holders to be armed in City Hall, which has metal detectors. They eventually relented; but they insist on putting the mark of Cain on CHL holders. They also took down the signs at Hobby but not IAH. I don't know who got that done.

- Jim

RHenriksen wrote:'... is this a legal sign?

At the risk of being a nerd, there is no such thing as an illegal sign*.

The sign is legally unenforceable.

The City of Houston has had a problem with CHLs on city property (which is the property of the citizens) since day 1. This is odd, because it continues across administrations and after numerous fights.

BTW, whoever made the sign doesn't know Spanish. Spanish does not have the circumflex accent (ô), and usually all-caps printing in Spanish does not use any accent marks.

*They could have a sign saying "No Chinese or cripples." It would not be enforceable, and probably they would be sued for it. But it wouldn't be illegal (that is, a crime).

- Jim