Verizon Theater GP - Pending

[Dragonfighter]

Hey all, just sent this to the city attorney of Grand Prairie:

Hello,

I was perusing the FAQ for the Verizon Theater and found this citation:
Weapons
Guests, including law enforcement personnel, not present in an official capacity, are prohibited from bringing weapons into the theatre. Verizon Theatre does not provide weapon lockers. Weapons may not be checked in at Guest Services. Weapons include, but are not limited to, the following: Firearms, explosives, stun guns, handcuffs, brass knuckles, sticks, clubs, batons, martial arts instruments, pepper spray, tear gas, and knives. Guests found in possession of the above-mentioned items will be asked to remove the item from the theatre or dispose of it. Guests who refuse to comply will be ejected from the theatre and may be subject to arrest. (em added)

As the Verizon Theater is property, "owned or leased by" the city and concerts are not professional sporting events, I am asking for a clarification on how your city intends to deal with concealed handgun licensees.

(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.
PC 30.06, Texas

Any clarification and procedural information would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,
Name Deleted

We'll see.

[sjfcontrol]

I see nothing there that would apply to a CHL holder.

[Dragonfighter]

You mean in their policy statement I think. True but what I am hoping to get is a handle on what the practical reality is; whether they intend to violate the law or if they have procedures in place for CHL's.

[rm9792]

I see nothing there that would apply to a CHL holder.

Nothing written, but a wand or detector will be infringing.

[Kythas]

This would probably be one of those instances where you'll beat the rap but not the ride.

[RPB]

I see Grand Prairie needs to update the Parks ordinance too

[RPB]

I went ahead and sent the Mayor, each councilman, city managers, city secretary, city atty etc etc etc this:

salcorn@gptx.org;mgalicia@gptx.org;alopez@GPTX.org;pnaswort@gptx.org;dpostell@gptx.org;pmarcum@gptx.org; cdimaggi@gptx.org;gcolvin@gptx.org;mhepworth@gptx.org;cdimaggi@gptx.org;rjensen@gptx.org;billthorn@swbell.net;jswaffor@gptx.org;tshotwell@gptx.org;ggiessner@gptx.org;

TO:
Mayor,
City Managers
City Attorney,
City Secretary,
City Police, (via City Sexretary)
Each City Council member.


I'm trying to save the City money and am concerned about the City currently violating a State law which could lead to a Federal Lawsuit which would be very expensive to defend.

Excluding Courts, most City owned (Property, Library, PARKS, buildings) are not allowed to prohibit concealed handgun carry licensees, reference to Texas Penal Code Section 46, specifically sections 46.02, 46.03, and 46.035 in the link below for your convenience. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... htm#46.035" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Furthermore, Texas Penal Code 1.08 specifically prohibits municipal and County governments, including any subdivision or agency from enacting or enforcing laws governing conduct reserved for state law. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

The State further asserts its sole authority to regulate concealed carry, superseding any municipal ordinance or law.

Local Government Code 229.001, specifically denies cities the right to regulate Concealed Handgun Licensees while granting cities the right to regulate some use of arms by unlicensed individuals, notice the "other than" language in the Statue below: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.229.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 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:

(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.

And lastly, government owned buildings such as the (Property, Library, PARKS, buildings, civic center) are specifically prohibited from banning the carrying of guns by CHL holders via the PC 30.06 trespassing statute (the only way that private businesses can ban CHL in Texas).
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#30.06" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas PC 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.

Since a "good faith" arrest can NOT be made for anything which is NOT illegal, I hope the officers, sheriffs, Constables are aware of the above, and trained/informed accordingly, so the Governments don't waste money due to a Federal §1983 civil rights lawsuit.


The City of Grand Parie violates the abovementioned laws in the following ways:

http://library.municode.com/showDocumen ... 42&docID=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sec. 18-23. - Permits for certain events required.

In addition to any other provision of this chapter that requires the obtaining of a permit prior to engaging in a given activity, no person in any park shall conduct, operate, present, manage or take part in any of the following activities unless a permit is obtained from the director prior to the start of the activity:

(1) Any organized sporting event using park ballgame facilities which are designated for permit use only;

(2) Any exhibit, dramatic performance, play, motion picture, radio or television broadcast, fair, circus, carnival, musical event or any similar event;

(3) Any public meeting, assembly, parade, ceremony, address, speech, political meeting or other gathering composed of one hundred (100) or more persons;

(4) Any use of any park facility by a group of persons to the exclusion of others;

(5) Any use involving amplified sound;

(6) Any use involving firearms or guns as defined in section 18-29; or


Sec. 18-29. - Firearms and explosives.

(a)Unless authorized by permit pursuant to section 18-23, no person other than a peace officer shall possess, exhibit or display a firearm in or [a] recreation facility or park building in any park in the city. For the purpose of this section, the word "firearm" shall mean any device designed, made or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion, burning substance, compressed air, compressed gas, spring device, or any device readily convertible to that use.

(b) No person shall discharge a rifle, sidearm, shotgun or any other hunting device within, across or on any park.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess, discharge, fire, ignite or explode any explosive of any nature, including but not limited to, firecrackers, all types of fireworks and dynamite upon, across, into or on to any city park without prior written approval from the director.


Additionally, the "policy" at Verizon Theater violates the above cited laws by threatening to arrest Concealed Handgun carriers who have been licensed by the State.


Since a "good faith" arrest can NOT be made for anything which is NOT illegal, I hope the officers, sheriffs, Constables are aware of the above, and trained/informed accordingly, so the Governments don't waste money due to a Federal §1983 civil rights lawsuit.



Signed a concerned City Taxpayer and voter.

[RPB]

Ooops, guess I forgot to say what city I am a taxpayer/voter in ,,,, still, I'm concerned

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41993&p=505784&hil ... er#p505789" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sjfcontrol]

Ooops, guess I forgot to say what city I am a taxpayer/voter in ,,,, still, I'm concerned

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41993&p=505784&hil ... er#p505789" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you saying you didn't actually sign the letter?
Also, did you actually refer to the "sexretary"?

In my view, an unsigned letter does not hold much weight.

[RPB]

Ooops, guess I forgot to say what city I am a taxpayer/voter in ,,,, still, I'm concerned

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41993&p=505784&hil ... er#p505789" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you saying you didn't actually sign the letter?
Also, did you actually refer to the "sexretary"?

In my view, an unsigned letter does not hold much weight.

Not trying to hold weight, it puts them on notice
I signed it but as a concerned taxpayer/voter, which I am ... I have no intention of giving my name and having to produce ID sometime and being singled out


The city has now been put on notice and any violation of civil rights is a negligence action.


Purpose of the E-mail was 1) put them on notice 2) notify EVERYONE so it becomes water cooler talk and one person notified may change ordinances ... it's worked, an almost identical letter (except whichever ordinance) in several other cities, parks ord were re-written, signs removed etc in several cities after they got that notice.

and .... my darn auto spell checker failed me the c is next to the x .... still, maybe she'll read it now

WE know it's cheaper to comply with the law, cities which figure that out, change their laws to comply with State law; they've been put on notice now and it's up to them if they want to take the risk of non-compliance; most cities in Central Texas fixed ordinances etc after being put on notice.... the city Attorney wanted to get paid for doing something

I don't live in that city, so signing my name would "hold no weight" anyway ... I'm just a concerned city taxpayer and voter, just in another city.
If someone living in that city wants to send it too and sign their name, ok, but it still put them on notice.

Horseshoe Bay area used to have no possession of a firearm in city limits laws .... they got put on notice, ... laws are now fixed. Dripping Springs, lots of cities had outdated ordinances which "concerned" me .... most are now fixed.

[sjfcontrol]

Ooops, guess I forgot to say what city I am a taxpayer/voter in ,,,, still, I'm concerned

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41993&p=505784&hil ... er#p505789" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you saying you didn't actually sign the letter?
Also, did you actually refer to the "sexretary"?

In my view, an unsigned letter does not hold much weight.

Not trying to hold weight, it puts them on notice
I signed it but as a concerned taxpayer/voter, which I am ... I have no intention of giving my name and having to produce ID sometime and being singled out


The city has now been put on notice and any violation of civil rights is a negligence action.


Purpose of the E-mail was 1) put them on notice 2) notify EVERYONE so it becomes water cooler talk and one person notified may change ordinances ... it's worked, an almost identical letter (except whichever ordinance) in several other cities, parks ord were re-written, signs removed etc in several cities after they got that notice.

and .... my darn auto spell checker failed me the c is next to the x .... still, maybe she'll read it now

WE know it's cheaper to comply with the law, cities which figure that out, change their laws to comply with State law; they've been put on notice now and it's up to them if they want to take the risk of non-compliance; most cities in Central Texas fixed ordinances etc after being put on notice.... the city Attorney wanted to get paid for doing something

I don't live in that city, so signing my name would "hold no weight" anyway ... I'm just a concerned city taxpayer and voter, just in another city.
If someone living in that city wants to send it too and sign their name, ok, but it still put them on notice.

Horseshoe Bay area used to have no possession of a firearm in city limits laws .... they got put on notice, ... laws are now fixed. Dripping Springs, lots of cities had outdated ordinances which "concerned" me .... most are now fixed.

OK -- Good Luck!

[Dragonfighter]

I just got off the phone with GPPD chief's secretary, she asked me to forward the email to the chief as well as the assistant city attorney. Which I did.

[saltydog452]

Verizon had (has?) a 'gun buster' sign on the glass door. Thats a sleeping dog that I wouldn't disturb. Regarding the illegality of the gun buster, I don't see the need bring that to their attention.

salty

[Dragonfighter]

Verizon had (has?) a 'gun buster' sign on the glass door. Thats a sleeping dog that I wouldn't disturb. Regarding the illegality of the gun buster, I don't see the need bring that to their attention.

salty

My family and I will be attending an event. No doubt screeners will be there. That sleeping dog is going to be woke up one way or the other...I am trying to avoid ruining my families evening.

[saltydog452]

We have been there a few times. There was no magnetic, or wanding those times. The ticket taker did take a peek into my wife's purse to ensure there wasn't any recording device. My wife's 'purse' looks about the size of a diaper bag for triplets.

salty