Library Carry

[bdickens]

And that point is...?

[boomerang]

Sec. 2.02 of the Penal Code

[srothstein]

Therefore, the government entity does not have the authority to post the 30.06 sign in the first place. If they are acting outside the law, then they are breaking the law.

The problem with this statement is that our legal system is based on the concept of prohibitions. Anything not expressly forbidden is permitted. There is no law prohibiting them from posting anything they so desire. It may not be any more enforceable than a sign saying that we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but it is legal to post both signs.

IMHO, they are not breaking the law and it is our responsibility to know if the sign is valid or not. They would be breaking the law if they tried to enforce the sign, such as requiring a metal detector and then saying you cannot come in with the firearm.

[shooter4]

We just had this type discussion in the Fl version of this forum. In the end the state does not have any regulations concerning businesses posted "no weapons" signage. It recognizes only the state restrictions, so any place that posts the signs can only ask you to leave if its that obvious, but no penalty exists. This particular case was in a hospital.

[bdickens]

Why would they post the 30.06 sign in the first place if they didn't think they could enforce it?

[Mithras61]

Why would they post the 30.06 sign in the first place if they didn't think they could enforce it?

Perhaps to dissuade those who are easily intimidated or who don't know the relevant laws to not carry in a place where the poster feels firearms don't belong?

[jguzman75]

Carried last week with no problems.

[wford]

Why would they post the 30.06 sign in the first place if they didn't think they could enforce it?

I doubt new signs are being posted and I'm sure many signs were removed. I speculate that somewhere in all the yelling,
some city manager shouted, "I'm not taking my signs down" and some legislature said, fine leave them up we will just fix
it so they dont apply. I wonder if it came down to someone asking who was going to pay for the sign removal. :)

[DoubleActionCHL]

Here's a question that I haven't seen mentioned: Is it possible that the library is used for other purposes than a library, such as city council meetings? A meeting of a governmental entity would validate the 30.06 (during the meeting) under TPC Section 46.035.

[C-dub]

It's possible, but it can only apply while the meeting is in progress and for our purposes it would have to take place in the open area of the library. In this scenario, if it took place in a private room within the same building I think they can only restrict carry to that room.

[dicion]

Here's a question that I haven't seen mentioned: Is it possible that the library is used for other purposes than a library, such as city council meetings? A meeting of a governmental entity would validate the 30.06 (during the meeting) under TPC Section 46.035.

True, but only during the meeting, and generally, a council meeting generally only posts 30.06 signs in the portion of the building in which the meeting is being held. (Remember, Premises is 'building or portion of a building')
In a small library, this may mean the entire building, but in a larger one it could only be one section.

[DoubleActionCHL]

True, but only during the meeting, and generally, a council meeting generally only posts 30.06 signs in the portion of the building in which the meeting is being held. (Remember, Premises is 'building or portion of a building')
In a small library, this may mean the entire building, but in a larger one it could only be one section.

Yes, I get the whole 30.06 concept, and I noted "during the meeting" in my post. I'm simply saying this might be their misguided rationale for posting the sign.

[Wisewr]

I'm not 100% sure of all the functions that go on in the library, but like I said, I have sent an e-mail to the legal department and am still awaiting their answer. They may inform me that they have goverment meetings on a regular basis at the library, doubt it, but they may. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[C-dub]

This may be the case, but I still think they can only post the room where the meeting is taking place.

[Wisewr]

Here was the excat copy and paste letter I sent to the City of Baytown's Legal Department:

Dear Officer for Public Records:
This request is made under the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 552, Texas Government Code, which guarantees the public's access to information in the custody of governmental agencies. It has come to my attention that the Sterling Municipal Library at Mary Elizabeth Wilbanks Avenue, Baytown, Texas 77520 has 30.06 signs posted on the outside doors. I respectfully request access to the following information:

1) Documents indicating that the signs are enforceable.
2) Documents indicating that the signs are not enforceable.
3) Any deliberations by the officials responsible for the signs as to the motive and goals for posting the signs.

Disclosure of this information is in the public interest because providing a copy of the information primarily benefits the general public. I therefore request a waiver of all fees and charges pursuant to Section 552.267 of the act.

I shall look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
Wayne

Okay, I got a response today from the City of Baytown's Legal Department. This is the e-mail I recieved:

Dear Wayne:


The City Clerk’s Office is in receipt of your public information request, internal number 1371. You requested: “It has come to my attention that the Sterling Municipal Library at Mary Elizabeth Wilbanks Avenue, Baytown, Texas 77520 has 30.06 signs posted on the outside doors. I respectfully request access to the following information:

1) Documents indicating that the signs are enforceable.
2) Documents indicating that the signs are not enforceable.
3) Any deliberations by the officials responsible for the signs as to the motive and goals for posting the signs.”



The City has researched its records and found that there are no records responsive to your request at this time.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance and have a wonderful day.


Sincerely,

Leticia Garza

Interim City Clerk

So basically if I read that right, there is no doucumentation that they can show to prove the signs are enforceable. Does everyone else read it the same way? So now I need to send some type of request to remove the sign. Is there a proper form for that?