A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09

[03Lightningrocks]

Is this the same platinum security out of california?

A quick Google and I found this. I bet it is this one.

http://www.platinumesi.com/index.php?page=home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mred]

Just like I thought, no one is available, leave a message.

[Kythas]

If you argue to them that Texas State Law says (and I'm paraphrasing)

1. State Law says you can't be denied the right to carry on any property that's owned or leased by a government entity, provided that property is not a courthouse, a prison, or the secure area of a police station, and
2. since the property on which the State Fair is located is owned by the County of Dallas,
3. the property on which the State Fair is located is not a courthouse, prison, or secure area of a police station,

then their "policy" of not allowing CHLs to carry without providing personal information cannot supercede State Law that expressly allows you to carry on that property with no preconditions.

[UTADELTAU]

Just came back from the fair no problems at all. They didn't even wand me or looked at my CHL. Rode the Dart and no issues at all maybe because I came in with a few hundred other people through the gate at the time.

[pdubyoo]

From the Fair's FAQ section on items you may bring into the grounds -

a gun? No, with one exception.
A person holding a valid concealed handgun license is permitted to enter onto State Fair property with his/her concealed handgun. Licenses will be examined at the entrance by an authorized security supervisor. Handguns will not be permitted inside the Cotton Bowl, a facility defined under Texas Penal Code 46.035 as "the premises where a high school, collegiate or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place." We want the Fair to be a fun and safe experience.
Link - http://www.bigtex.com/generalinfo/faqs/bring.asp

I know it's a semantics question, but when I read the policy that "Licenses will be examined", I take that literally...that some gate attendant will look at it to confirm that it is a valid CHL license. What I don't read in their policy is that they will "examine and record" your license, along with other information that they deem applicable. I planned on trevelling to Dallas next weekend with the family to attend, but those plans are on hold until I learn more about what, if anything changes between now and then. I certainly won't step foot on Fair Park grounds without my concealed weapon.

Gemini, thanks for taking a hard line on this. You have my support!! I'll be listening to Mark Davis on WBAP Monday morning via the web. I enjoy his show, and I imagine he'll work this issue pretty hard. He's a 2A and CHL supporter.

[wacokid]

I spoke to a Lawyer friend a bit about this last night and his understanding is that any entity that is going to gather that type of info is required by federal law to provide a privacy policy that the customer or what have you, that must be signed before the entity can gather the individuals information. They also must get background checks on any individual that will be handling that NPPI. It is basically the same thing your bank or brokerage firm would have to show you before they ask for any NPPI.

[SlowDave]

So, how can they justify the 30.05 warning? Well, entry into a private event is always by some type of contract. In this case, part of the contract is that you provide them with certain information IF you are carrying a weapon by using a CHL (I wonder if they are copying down off duty cops info too). This may be the same under the law as requiring you to pay a fee for an entry ticket.

Does this mean that any private enterprise could require you to provide your DL, CHL, and a major credit card number be recorded before you are allowed entry? Okay, so no one would go. But if this business was temporarily operating on gov't owned property, then would that still be allowed? If there is no law (or understanding) protecting our private information, then there should be.

Always appreciate your input Steve.

[hurst_guy]

I was taking my wife and grandson tomorrow night- I emphasize "was". I also went to the state fair site and found an e-mail address "pr@bigtex.com" for public relations. I have no reluctance letting businesses know what will and what will not get them my hard earned dollars.

[paynewp]

gemini, I would like to commend you on taking this stance!

I am still planning on attending the fair on the 13th armed as usual. I will not be giving them my personal information until they release me thier personal information. Hopefully we both can get each others info and spam each other for many years to come I am going to continue watch this thread and keeping up with the outcome of this. This has been some great info!

[.45mac.40]

Nothing left, for me to add, I' ll continue to stay tuned ... Add my name, if we need a list.
I'm a new Texan.... but I can find WBAP AM 820- Monday morn.
Thanks

Mac

[srothstein]

We should diligently oppose ALL attempts to erode our right to carry. Every one of them.

I agree with you that this is an attempt to infringe on our rights and we should fight it. I fully support everyone on this page and joining in this fight. I am also writing tot he State Fair Corporate headquarters to complain.

I am just pointing out that even though it is an infringement, it may very well be one the law currently allows. And, even if we win this fight this year, we need to get the TSRA involved and a law written to permanently end this fight against anyone else who tries the same idea. I can think of a few who would try this if they had thought of it (or hear of it) and will not back down from the fight.

[srothstein]

Does this mean that any private enterprise could require you to provide your DL, CHL, and a major credit card number be recorded before you are allowed entry? Okay, so no one would go. But if this business was temporarily operating on gov't owned property, then would that still be allowed? If there is no law (or understanding) protecting our private information, then there should be.

Yes, I think this is exactly the current state of the law. Any private business could require this and more to enter their business. Obviously, if they got too personal, no one would go and they would go out of business.

But if you think of it, this already happens in many places. There are many organizations that rent convention facilities from the government on a regular basis. Many of them require you to be a member of the organization to enter the show. And, to be an organization member, you need to give them that information. So, it may very well be a currently legal situation. I am not saying it is legal, just that it might be and I find no law forbidding this collection of data. And since there is no law forbidding it, we generally operate on the principle of what i snot forbidden is allowed.

Now, there was the point about the city and county being forbidden from making a registry. This might count as one and thus be illegal. I am not sure on how that one would play out in court. I can see it going either way, especially depending on the judge.

But suppose we take it down one step. The posted State Fair policy says your license will be examined. Would it be a legal policy to require you to show the CHL to a gate guard for examination, if he did not write anything down? I certainly think so, and I think a court would find that reasonable. The law does not say you cannot show the CHL to anyone else, just when you must show it. And if you want to carry in with a CHL when no one else could, I can see the court saying the need for your to verify your authority to carry was reaosnable. The writing of the information down is where I think they crossed the line.

It may be legal, but right and wrong have almost nothing to do with legality.

[blue]

Seems like they put themselves in a very bad position:

If there is identity theft traced back to their data collecting, then they-NOT the city- BUT THEY will be Directly Responsible and Liable on any lawsuit or criminal actions.

There is a good possiability the CHL victim(S) could be:
-Judge
-Lawyer
-L.E.O.
-D.A.
-etc., etc.

----------------------------------------------
##--Their "Legal" Dept. Must be Totally 'Asleep At The Wheel'! to EVEN ALLOW some egotripper to put them in such a position. ($$$)--##
-----------------------------------------------

-CHL holders have familys. So they may be 2-3% of general population, But ADD IN their family/friends = looking at 5% of the gate Rejected.-- Seems like a very POOR way to run a business. --

Fair Manhours?$$$ wasted collecting info that Really is NOT needed by the fair!
Reduce the personel cost = more Profit !!! (Why Pay for WannaBeCops when you have the Real Police???????)

(Badge???? WE don't need no stinkin badge! ) ( -from a famous Great movie)

[gemini]

Guys, I really enjoy and like reading all the different thoughts, angles, opinions and creative thinking.
I'm glad there is comradery among the CHL and shooting community. You never can tell who might come
up with a solution (sooner than later) to this problem. I posted the original incident, but never really posted
why I fully believe they are breaking the law by requiring the collection of personal information, among
other things. The following are my main issues: (you may need to break out a few selected statutes to read the full copy)

1. GC 411.205 Displaying License; If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person
when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license
holder shall display both the license holder's driver license or identification certificate issued by the department and the
license holder's handgun license.

I've stated this before; it's just as important what is NOT in the law as what is...... The law does NOT require you to
display your DL or CHL to anyone other than a magistrate or peace officer on demand. To save time and band width
I'll refrain from expounding on this right now. I fully understand ID to cash a check at a private business etc.......
We're talking CHL here.

2. PC 30.06 Trespass by Holder of License to Carry Concealed Handgun; (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on
property of another without efective consent; and .................................................we know this part.....
(3) (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

Seems pretty clear to me I can carry at the Fair or any other public park. No other conditions or restrictions applied.
It means they can't post 30.06 because it's owned or leased by a government entity. To do so would supercede state law.

3. PC 46.035 Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder; (a) =intentionally fails to conceal
(b) =reckless carry (1) = 51% business (2) HS, college, professional sporting or UIL event
(3) = correctional facility (4) = hospital, nursing home (5) = in an amusement park or (6) = church
......................................... the rest defines license holder, premises, amusement park etc...........
now lets skip to the end.......(double ammendment to same provision)
(i) Subsections (b)(4) = hospital etc., (b)(5) = amusement park (b)(6) = church and (c) = governmental meeting
do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06

And they can't post 30.06 because........see above item 2.

4. LGC 229.001 Firearms; Explosives; (a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership,
keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:.........................
alot of stuff that doesn't apply to my issue.............. then
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person [u]other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun[/u] under
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body ...................................

This is very clear to me. No registration (collecting of information IS a form of registration). They can prevent a person from carrying
OTHER than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. I don't think the intention of this wording was to allow the City of
Dallas to make up it's own rules concerning this issue OR authorize one of it's leasee's to make up their own rules. Which if they did it,
would supercede state law.

I know most of you already know, or have read the above statutes. Maybe skipping over the parts that you thought didn't
apply to you. Or maybe it's been awhile sense you've boned up on specific law. I urge you to review and know multiple areas
of CHL related laws.....not just the exact wording, size etc of the 30.06 statute regs. I can't go around quoting specific Code
Numbers, Chapters, Subsections etc.......but I try to understand what they say and know the general area to look for
reference.

Sorry for such a long post this late at night. I went to the Ark vs A&M game, can't sleep, and I'm still a bit wired. Woop.

Thoughts and comments? Thanks.

[KD5NRH]

I fully understand ID to cash a check at a private business etc.......

The one thing people keep skipping with this comparison is that a merchant can refuse your check for pretty much any reason, and thus can put nearly any condition they want on accepting it. They can't refuse you access to property covered under 30.06(e) purely on the grounds that you're carrying, so putting conditions on that access is a completely different kettle of fish.