How to report improper §30.06 signs

[mojo84]

You can do a property search of the county's property tax records. To find the appropriate site google "(county name) property tax appraisal district".

[bigity]

Thanks.

[Rex B]

There used to be a 30.06 sign on the chain-link gate on the South side of the Will Rogers stock barns. You walked past it when you parked across the street to enter the Stock Show. It was a permanent sign. Is it still there?

Also, the Tarrant County Records Building has a sign on the left side of the main entrance that is not 30.06, but is large and strongly worded to discourage CHLs from entering armed. If that is still up, it should be challenged.

[CJD]

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

It's not really a loophole because §30.07 was/is not in existence so SB273 couldn't address it. SB273 will not apply to §30.07 signs.

Chas.

Chas, could this wording of SB273 still make the bill apply to notice under 30.07:

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 concealed handgun license, 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.

Since it says "any sign referring to a chl", and that a license holder carrying a "handgun" (note: does not specify concealed), etc.

Also, I am wondering about signs posted at gun shows. SB273 only applies to signs posted by "a state agency or a political subdivision of the state." What if the sign is posted by an employee of the gun show, or some other non-state employee. Does SB273 then not apply?

[drumbdummer]

I will freely admit that I didn't read this entire thread, but I have a question. I work in a public school. I know that it is illegal for me to carry at work without very specific approval. (I don't carry at work either) However, the school at which I last worked had signs meeting the requirements for 30.06 posted on several doors. Would this mean they can have a complaint filed against them? This is just a matter of curiosity for me as I don't really care if they have the sign or if a complaint is filed.

[Keith B]

I will freely admit that I didn't read this entire thread, but I have a question. I work in a public school. I know that it is illegal for me to carry at work without very specific approval. (I don't carry at work either) However, the school at which I last worked had signs meeting the requirements for 30.06 posted on several doors. Would this mean they can have a complaint filed against them? This is just a matter of curiosity for me as I don't really care if they have the sign or if a complaint is filed.

Yes, you can. However, since they are statutorily off-limits already, it really doesn't matter if they are there or not.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

It's not really a loophole because §30.07 was/is not in existence so SB273 couldn't address it. SB273 will not apply to §30.07 signs.

Chas.

Chas, could this wording of SB273 still make the bill apply to notice under 30.07:

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 concealed handgun license, 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.

Since it says "any sign referring to a chl", and that a license holder carrying a "handgun" (note: does not specify concealed), etc.

Also, I am wondering about signs posted at gun shows. SB273 only applies to signs posted by "a state agency or a political subdivision of the state." What if the sign is posted by an employee of the gun show, or some other non-state employee. Does SB273 then not apply?

Sorry to be slow responding, but I just saw this post. This fact pattern is a lawyer's dream come true! There are so many things that can be argued on both sides of the issue everyone will make money on this fight.

Seriously, it is doubtful that the language you quoted will make SB273 apply to open-carry. Playing devil's advocate, there are at least two factors that weight toward applying the Bill's provisions only to concealed-carry and TPC §30.06. First, the Bill's caption expressly states that it deals with concealed-carry on property owned or leased by a governmental entity. (A bill's caption does not "establish" legislative intent, but it is evidence.) Another factor is the timing of the passage of SB273 and HB910 (open-carry). SB273 passed on May 23rd, six days before HB910 passed on May 29th. The argument would be that the Legislature could not have intended SB273 to apply to open-carry when open-carry was not legal at the time the Legislature passed SB273. Yes, everyone know HB910 has been filed, but that doesn't change the facts.

If unenforceable 30.07 signs are a problem, which may or may not be the case, then it will have to be addressed in 2017.

Chas.

[CJD]

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

It's not really a loophole because §30.07 was/is not in existence so SB273 couldn't address it. SB273 will not apply to §30.07 signs.

Chas.

Chas, could this wording of SB273 still make the bill apply to notice under 30.07:

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 concealed handgun license, 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.

Since it says "any sign referring to a chl", and that a license holder carrying a "handgun" (note: does not specify concealed), etc.

Also, I am wondering about signs posted at gun shows. SB273 only applies to signs posted by "a state agency or a political subdivision of the state." What if the sign is posted by an employee of the gun show, or some other non-state employee. Does SB273 then not apply?

Sorry to be slow responding, but I just saw this post. This fact pattern is a lawyer's dream come true! There are so many things that can be argued on both sides of the issue everyone will make money on this fight.

Seriously, it is doubtful that the language you quoted will make SB273 apply to open-carry. Playing devil's advocate, there are at least two factors that weight toward applying the Bill's provisions only to concealed-carry and TPC §30.06. First, the Bill's caption expressly states that it deals with concealed-carry on property owned or leased by a governmental entity. (A bill's caption does not "establish" legislative intent, but it is evidence.) Another factor is the timing of the passage of SB273 and HB910 (open-carry). SB273 passed on May 23rd, six days before HB910 passed on May 29th. The argument would be that the Legislature could not have intended SB273 to apply to open-carry when open-carry was not legal at the time the Legislature passed SB273. Yes, everyone know HB910 has been filed, but that doesn't change the facts.

If unenforceable 30.07 signs are a problem, which may or may not be the case, then it will have to be addressed in 2017.

Chas.

Thanks for your response. What did you think about my second question:

Also, I am wondering about signs posted at gun shows. SB273 only applies to signs posted by "a state agency or a political subdivision of the state." What if the sign is posted by an employee of the gun show, or some other non-state employee. Does SB273 then not apply?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

It's not really a loophole because §30.07 was/is not in existence so SB273 couldn't address it. SB273 will not apply to §30.07 signs.

Chas.

Chas, could this wording of SB273 still make the bill apply to notice under 30.07:

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 concealed handgun license, 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.

Since it says "any sign referring to a chl", and that a license holder carrying a "handgun" (note: does not specify concealed), etc.

Also, I am wondering about signs posted at gun shows. SB273 only applies to signs posted by "a state agency or a political subdivision of the state." What if the sign is posted by an employee of the gun show, or some other non-state employee. Does SB273 then not apply?

Sorry to be slow responding, but I just saw this post. This fact pattern is a lawyer's dream come true! There are so many things that can be argued on both sides of the issue everyone will make money on this fight.

Seriously, it is doubtful that the language you quoted will make SB273 apply to open-carry. Playing devil's advocate, there are at least two factors that weight toward applying the Bill's provisions only to concealed-carry and TPC §30.06. First, the Bill's caption expressly states that it deals with concealed-carry on property owned or leased by a governmental entity. (A bill's caption does not "establish" legislative intent, but it is evidence.) Another factor is the timing of the passage of SB273 and HB910 (open-carry). SB273 passed on May 23rd, six days before HB910 passed on May 29th. The argument would be that the Legislature could not have intended SB273 to apply to open-carry when open-carry was not legal at the time the Legislature passed SB273. Yes, everyone know HB910 has been filed, but that doesn't change the facts.

If unenforceable 30.07 signs are a problem, which may or may not be the case, then it will have to be addressed in 2017.

Chas.

Thanks for your response. What did you think about my second question:

Also, I am wondering about signs posted at gun shows. SB273 only applies to signs posted by "a state agency or a political subdivision of the state." What if the sign is posted by an employee of the gun show, or some other non-state employee. Does SB273 then not apply?

The governmental agency will still be responsible since it owns the property. For example, all exits to public buildings must remain unlocked from the inside so people can exit in case of an emergency. If a building owner rents or leased the property to someone and that person/entity put a chain on exit doors, the building owner is still liable (along with the renter/lessee).

A person can "do" an act either directly, or by ratifying the acts of another. That ratification can be by an act or failure to act.

Chas.

[CJD]

The governmental agency will still be responsible since it owns the property. For example, all exits to public buildings must remain unlocked from the inside so people can exit in case of an emergency. If a building owner rents or leased the property to someone and that person/entity put a chain on exit doors, the building owner is still liable (along with the renter/lessee).

A person can "do" an act either directly, or by ratifying the acts of another. That ratification can be by an act or failure to act.

Chas.

Thanks!

[MeMelYup]

So, evidently these people have it wrong.

"In Texas’ hard-charging gun community, the Dallas Zoo is something of a terra incognita.

The property is city-owned — under state law, that would typically mean holders of concealed handgun licenses could carry pistols there. But the zoo is privately run, and it posts “no guns” signs, pointing to exemptions in the statute for “amusement parks” and “educational institutions.”

“The law doesn’t change anything about what we can already prohibit,” spokeswoman Laurie Holloway said. “So nothing will change for us Sept. 1.”

Though “educational institution” is undefined in state law for general purposes, it’s most commonly thought to refer to schools. For “amusement parks,” that’s been typically thought of addressing places such as Six Flags Over Texas in Arlington.

Friendswood attorney Charles Cotton, a National Rifle Association board member, said the zoo qualifying under either category is something “even a first-year law student knows is wrong.”

“There’s going to be a great opportunity here,” he said. “The city of Dallas or whoever is going to continue with that kind of stuff, and they are going to get sued.""

[sjfcontrol]

The Texas State Fair is on City of Dallas property. It is leased to a company that runs the fair. They used to post 30.06, but were forced to stop posting. Now, when entering the fair, you indicate to the security wander that you need to speak to the DPD officer. He checks your CHL, and lets you in.

[CJD]

Any word on when the form will be available? The day is almost here!

[AJSully421]

Now the frigging dallas zoo is claiming that they are an amusement park because they have a monorail?

Liberalism is a mental disease.

[JP171]

AJ the property the Dallas zoo is on is owned by the city so its not applicable, what ever they want to claim