TexasCHLforum.com

It has been reported to me that DPS staff attorney, Ms. O'Shaw, recently stated in an Instructor Renewal School that public schools can post 30.06 signs on the parking lots and that they are enforceable on the parking lots and other grounds; i.e. not only in buildings.

Does anyone recall hearing this?

Chas.

Did he give a statutory basis for that opinion?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It has been reported to me that DPS staff attorney, Ms. O'Shaw, recently stated in an Instructor Renewal School that public schools can post 30.06 signs on the parking lots and that they are enforceable on the parking lots and other grounds; i.e. not only in buildings.

Does anyone recall hearing this?

Chas.

I would sure like to know. Plano ISD has 30.06 signs posted on their entrances to the lots and I don't want to be a test case.

I found this on the web and couldn't find any reference in the forum. What does this mean to the posting of 30.06 signs on government property? IANAL, but in reading the summary, it sounds like Cornyn said they CAN post a 30.06 to prohibit entrance into government property. Has this been opinion been overturned?

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op4 ... c-0325.htm

Keith B wrote:I found this on the web and couldn't find any reference in the forum. What does this mean to the posting of 30.06 signs on government property? IANAL, but in reading the summary, it sounds like Cornyn said they CAN post a 30.06 to prohibit entrance into government property. Has this been opinion been overturned?

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op4 ... c-0325.htm

That opinion would have been obsoleted by SB501, it was correct at the time it was written though.

OK, thanks!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It has been reported to me that DPS staff attorney, Ms. O'Shaw, recently stated in an Instructor Renewal School that public schools can post 30.06 signs on the parking lots and that they are enforceable on the parking lots and other grounds; i.e. not only in buildings.

Does anyone recall hearing this?

Chas.

iirc, she said it and then corrected herself about two sentences later. (but don't take my memory as fact yet.)
She was actually in pretty good form this time. Despite a head cold. El Gato and I even agreed on that.

Well, just having attended the class yesterday, Ms. O'Shaw did in fact state that if the school had a 30.06 sign in the parking lot, that it would have to be decided in court and recommended abiding by it. One gentleman in the audience tried to get her to confirm or refute that school property is not in fact owned by the "state" but rather by the school board. I've never heard of that one, but that's certainly interesting.

She also wouldn't say one way or the other about police stations that have a "no guns" sign posted in their public lobby. They have the right to post a sign on the nonpublic, secure portion of the law enforcement facility IF THEY PROVIDE A GUN LOCKER, under SB1709 which amended section 411.207. But they don't have the right or authority to post a generic "no guns allowed" sign at the public walk up window where you pay tickets and such. But she wouldn't say one way or the other.

Those legal folks are always wishy washy.

James

If the laws were written in "Black and White" there would be no need for the "Legal Folks" and their multiple "Opinions"!

Wow.....wouldn't that be nice?

AEA wrote:If the laws were written in "Black and White" there would be no need for the "Legal Folks" and their multiple "Opinions"!

Wow.....wouldn't that be nice?

They are written in black & white. I do not know how they can come up with this stuff, unless it is because they do not like the law. Bottom line is their opinion really does not matter.

I don't think 30.06 was even mentioned when I was there on Aug. 7.

I attended the Oct. 4 class. I remember a mention of abiding by 30.06 signs in a mall parking lot as an answer to a question. She stated that anyone, even an individual could post a 30.06 sign in their front yard and the sign must be respected.

I don't remember any reference to a 30.06 sign at a school parking lot.

Quinn

extremist wrote:Well, just having attended the class yesterday, Ms. O'Shaw did in fact state that if the school had a 30.06 sign in the parking lot, that it would have to be decided in court and recommended abiding by it. One gentleman in the audience tried to get her to confirm or refute that school property is not in fact owned by the "state" but rather by the school board. I've never heard of that one, but that's certainly interesting.

30.06 does not list "the state" but lists "governmental entity". I think School boards have elected officials and mandatory taxes for the homeowners. Sounds like the government to me.

School districts, cities, counties, and all their subsidiary organizations were created by acts of the legislature. IIRC, the legislative intent of changing 30.06 was to stop cities from prohibiting CHL.

Posting of property owned directly by the state was not much of a problem.

- Jim

txinvestigator wrote:

extremist wrote:Well, just having attended the class yesterday, Ms. O'Shaw did in fact state that if the school had a 30.06 sign in the parking lot, that it would have to be decided in court and recommended abiding by it. One gentleman in the audience tried to get her to confirm or refute that school property is not in fact owned by the "state" but rather by the school board. I've never heard of that one, but that's certainly interesting.

30.06 does not list "the state" but lists "governmental entity". I think School boards have elected officials and mandatory taxes for the homeowners. Sounds like the government to me.

I think it's safe to say that school property (with the exception of private schools) is own, leased, and/or operated by "a governmental entity". I know of a certain plot of real estate in Pasadena that is part of P.I.S.D, but actually owned by the City of Pasadena.

PC 30.06(e) clearly states that this statute does not apply to property owned or leased by a government entity and is not a location where a license holder would be otherwise prohibited from carrying.

It seems to me that the intent here is to prevent small government Napoleons from making their own gun-free zones. The rules should be uniform for all schools, all courthouses, etc. PC 30.06 defines this and no gun-hating assistant principal should be able to change it at his or her whim.