Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

[Odinvalknir]

Just curious, what would qualify a sign as improperly posted? Other than the whole size thing and being hidden or not conspicuously placed.


What qualifies a sign for posting in this thread? I'm brand new to CC and have been searching the front of buildings before entering so far lol.

[Keith B]

Just curious, what would qualify a sign as improperly posted? Other than the whole size thing and being hidden or not conspicuously placed.


What qualifies a sign for posting in this thread? I'm brand new to CC and have been searching the front of buildings before entering so far lol.

It should have been covered in your class that government buildings cannot be posted to prohibit concealed carry. Only specific locations in the buildings like courts and meetings can be posted and are off limits.

[imkopaka]

Just curious, what would qualify a sign as improperly posted? Other than the whole size thing and being hidden or not conspicuously placed.


What qualifies a sign for posting in this thread? I'm brand new to CC and have been searching the front of buildings before entering so far lol.

This particular thread is about cities posting signage when they have no right to do so (e.g. city park, municipal building, public area of police station, city-owned community center, etc). The applicable statute is as follows:

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (i), a state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a license to carry a handgun, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

(b) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state that violates Subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of:

(1) not less than $1,000 and not more than $1,500 for the first violation; and

(2) not less than $10,000 and not more than $10,500 for the second or a subsequent violation.

(c) Each day of a continuing violation of Subsection (a) constitutes a separate violation.

(d) A resident of this state or a person licensed to carry a handgun under this subchapter may file a complaint with the attorney general that a state agency or political subdivision is in violation of Subsection (a) if the resident or person provides the agency or subdivision a written notice that describes the violation and specific location of the sign found to be in violation and the agency or subdivision does not cure the violation before the end of the third business day after the date of receiving the written notice. A complaint filed under this subsection must include evidence of the violation and a copy of the written notice.

(e) A civil penalty collected by the attorney general under this section shall be deposited to the credit of the compensation to victims of crime fund established under Subchapter B, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(f) Before a suit may be brought against a state agency or a political subdivision of the state for a violation of Subsection (a), the attorney general must investigate the complaint to determine whether legal action is warranted. If legal action is warranted, the attorney general must give the chief administrative officer of the agency or political subdivision charged with the violation a written notice that:

(1) describes the violation and specific location of the sign found to be in violation;

(2) states the amount of the proposed penalty for the violation; and

(3) gives the agency or political subdivision 15 days from receipt of the notice to remove the sign and cure the violation to avoid the penalty, unless the agency or political subdivision was found liable by a court for previously violating Subsection (a).

(g) If the attorney general determines that legal action is warranted and that the state agency or political subdivision has not cured the violation within the 15-day period provided by Subsection (f)(3), the attorney general or the appropriate county or district attorney may sue to collect the civil penalty provided by Subsection (b). The attorney general may also file a petition for a writ of mandamus or apply for other appropriate equitable relief. A suit or petition under this subsection may be filed in a district court in Travis County or in a county in which the principal office of the state agency or political subdivision is located. The attorney general may recover reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining relief under this subsection, including court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, investigative costs, witness fees, and deposition costs.

(h) Sovereign immunity to suit is waived and abolished to the extent of liability created by this section.

(i) Subsection (a) does not apply to a written notice provided by a state hospital under Section 552.002, Health and Safety Code.

Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (S.B. 273), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2017.

Huh. That's weird - it never mentions 30.07, only 30.06.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

Huh. That's weird - it never mentions 30.07, only 30.06

Here's a hint why;

Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (S.B. 273), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2017.

[spectre]

Huh. That's weird - it never mentions 30.07, only 30.06

Here's a hint why;

Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (S.B. 273), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2017.

Also, there's not much point in adding open carry when enforcement is nearly nonexistant for improperly posted 30.06 signs. Now, if the law was changed to allow each affected LTC to individually bring suit against offenders in small claims court, for civil rights violations, I bet the signs would come down a lot quicker. Can you imagine the effect of even a few hundred Harris County residents each bringing a separate $1000 suit against a local offender?

[Odinvalknir]

Ah ok, so the thread is covering city government buildings. I Wasn't sure if it was government or just random places around the city.


Thanks for clearing that up. I don't go to many city buildings so I've never really thought about it.

[WildRose]

Ah ok, so the thread is covering city government buildings. I Wasn't sure if it was government or just random places around the city.


Thanks for clearing that up. I don't go to many city buildings so I've never really thought about it.

City, county, and state owned properties/buildings.

[WildRose]

Huh. That's weird - it never mentions 30.07, only 30.06

Here's a hint why;

Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (S.B. 273), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2017.

Also, there's not much point in adding open carry when enforcement is nearly nonexistant for improperly posted 30.06 signs. Now, if the law was changed to allow each affected LTC to individually bring suit against offenders in small claims court, for civil rights violations, I bet the signs would come down a lot quicker. Can you imagine the effect of even a few hundred Harris County residents each bringing a separate $1000 suit against a local offender?

This is the next step we need in the law along with placing those fines directly on those responsible for the policies, rather than making the taxpayers of those communities liable for their abuse of office.

We also need a change in law that allows for a criminal prosecution of those individuals for Oppression Under Cover of Authority/Official Oppression.

[WildRose]

Ah ok, so the thread is covering city government buildings. I Wasn't sure if it was government or just random places around the city.


Thanks for clearing that up. I don't go to many city buildings so I've never really thought about it.

The benefit of living in a small community is that I have the ability to walk up to any of our local, county, state officials anytime and strike up a conversation without having to first stumble through layers of gate keepers.

I recently had a discussion about this subject with the Local Sheriff and two DPS officers over lunch, and separately with the City pc.

The general consensus on both open and concealed carry is "We don't care, just keep it holstered, if you need to enter a prohibited location such as the court, stop by the office and check your gun.

I was at the county court for a case today and all had to do was walk into the secured area of the sheriff's office, stick it in a drawer, and reclaim it the same way once we were done in court.

We're fortunate to have good LEO's in this county at all levels hence they have a good relationship with the public, none of the "Us against Them" mentality in any of the departments/agencies.

[spectre]

Huh. That's weird - it never mentions 30.07, only 30.06

Here's a hint why;

Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (S.B. 273), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2017.

Also, there's not much point in adding open carry when enforcement is nearly nonexistant for improperly posted 30.06 signs. Now, if the law was changed to allow each affected LTC to individually bring suit against offenders in small claims court, for civil rights violations, I bet the signs would come down a lot quicker. Can you imagine the effect of even a few hundred Harris County residents each bringing a separate $1000 suit against a local offender?

This is the next step we need in the law along with placing those fines directly on those responsible for the policies, rather than making the taxpayers of those communities liable for their abuse of office.

We also need a change in law that allows for a criminal prosecution of those individuals for Oppression Under Cover of Authority/Official Oppression.

Not going to happen. Career politicians will never pass a law holding politicians personally responsible for their actions. The citizens always get victimized twice: first by bad guys in government and second by paying the bill for their oppression.

[WildRose]

Huh. That's weird - it never mentions 30.07, only 30.06

Here's a hint why;

Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (S.B. 273), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2017.

Also, there's not much point in adding open carry when enforcement is nearly nonexistant for improperly posted 30.06 signs. Now, if the law was changed to allow each affected LTC to individually bring suit against offenders in small claims court, for civil rights violations, I bet the signs would come down a lot quicker. Can you imagine the effect of even a few hundred Harris County residents each bringing a separate $1000 suit against a local offender?

This is the next step we need in the law along with placing those fines directly on those responsible for the policies, rather than making the taxpayers of those communities liable for their abuse of office.

We also need a change in law that allows for a criminal prosecution of those individuals for Oppression Under Cover of Authority/Official Oppression.

Not going to happen. Career politicians will never pass a law holding politicians personally responsible for their actions. The citizens always get victimized twice: first by bad guys in government and second by paying the bill for their oppression.

A whole lot of local, county, ans state officials as well as some elected congress critters and quite a few federal employees have all been convicted of felonies over the years.

In this case we're not even discussing felonies, just civil violations.

[Abraham]

WR,

As an attorney with your much Clarence Darrow like-wisdom, I really appreciate your wonderful legal expertise and opinions about....everything.

Thanks and please keep it up.

We're all waiting for your next gem.

[oljames3]

WR,

As an attorney with your much Clarence Darrow like-wisdom, I really appreciate your wonderful legal expertise and opinions about....everything.

Thanks and please keep it up.

We're all waiting for your next gem.

Abraham, I need your address so I can send you the bill for my new keyboard.

[ScottDLS]

WR,

As an attorney with your much Clarence Darrow like-wisdom, I really appreciate your wonderful legal expertise and opinions about....everything.

Thanks and please keep it up.

We're all waiting for your next gem.

You're just mad because he didn't put IANALLTPLITWASICRAFASCL (I am not a lawyer licensed to practice law in Texas with a specialty in civil rights and federal and state criminal law) on his post.

DISIWAL (Did I SAY I was a lawyer?)....OK then.

[spectre]

We also need a change in law that allows for a criminal prosecution of those individuals for Oppression Under Cover of Authority/Official Oppression.

Texas law already makes it a crime to do what they're doing but so far nobody has the stones to make an arrest.

§ 39.03. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful;

The law is crystal clear, in black and white, in plain English, that 30.06 and 30.07 don't apply where "the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity" unless the property is off limits under § 46 like a courtroom or a secured area of an airport.

More laws are not the answer. Law Enforcement needs to enforce existing laws or they're part of the problem.

ICYMI IANAL TINLA OK?