Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

[puma guy]

if a CHL holder unloads their weapon in public that would require exposing it. That's currently a violation.

Under the directions of a peace office at the entry table? I doubt it. And the fact that it would contradict doesn't automatically invalidate anything.

You may be correct if directed by a peace officer. I am missing the point of the second statement.[/quote]

The fact that you can't unload without displaying doesn't automatically render the requirement to unload invalid or actionable. Additionally by the time it could get to court the "illegal" display issue will no longer be, well, illegal. Not really a winner of an argument IMO. While it seems clearly against the intention of the new law I see nothing that would violate the actual language of the law.[/quote]


I guess we'll just have to disagree. The building is owned by the City of Pasadena. Doesn't matter what venue is renting the building it can not be made off limits to CHL by any of the 30.06 notification methods, i.e. verbal, written or signage notification per SB273. Having police force CHL holders unloading their weapons is oxymoronic to the intent of being able to carry a concealed weapon since it's rendered useless. It may even be illegal, unless the police are going to claim it's for officer safety; but that horse may not trot, since they are specifically enforcing the illegal notice on the ticket and signage. Say a school puts up a sign to prevent a CHL from having their weapon loaded while in the parking lot and hires police to enforce it. Are you Ok with that? In my humble non-lawyer opinion Pasadena will lose this battle.

[mojo84]

Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules that are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

[puma guy]

Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

Hopefully the AG will decide. I don't want to drift off track here, but I have to ask the following question. If a government entity is fined for violating SB273 and continually repeats the same violation at what point does it become official oppression for the person/s ordering it?

[EEllis]

Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

Hopefully the AG will decide. I don't want to drift off track here, but I have to ask the following question. If a government entity is fined for violating SB273 and continually repeats the same violation at what point does it become official oppression for the person/s ordering it?

It doesn't.

[EEllis]

Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

All they have to do is have a non law enforcement to do the initial contact. The rule seems enforcable it just a house rule that would be enforced by trespassing off property someone who violated it.

I've never had them take ammo, where is that from?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

HPD told it's officers working extra jobs at gun shows on City of Houston property to stop enforcing the 30.06 sign. They said Texas law doesn't allow government property to be posted and that the sign was nothing more than the promoter's private policy. HPD correctly stated that its officers cannot enforce policies, only Texas law and city ordinances. The promoter's response was to hire Harris County Deputies.

Chas.

[mojo84]

Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

HPD told it's officers working extra jobs at gun shows on City of Houston property to stop enforcing the 30.06 sign. They said Texas law doesn't allow government property to be posted and that the sign was nothing more than the promoter's private policy. HPD correctly stated that its officers cannot enforce policies, only Texas law and city ordinances. The promoter's response was to hire Harris County Deputies.

Chas.

Intersting what people and governments will do to try to circumvent the law. I appreciate the Chief doing that. Now the sheriff needs to stand up and do the right thing.

[mojo84]

Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

All they have to do is have a non law enforcement to do the initial contact. The rule seems enforcable it just a house rule that would be enforced by trespassing off property someone who violated it.

I've never had them take ammo, where is that from?

Are you choosing to ignore that it is illegal for them to have the 30.06 sign up and prohibit concealed carry on city or county owned propert or are you just being obtuse for argument's sake?

[EEllis]

I guess we'll just have to disagree. The building is owned by the City of Pasadena. Doesn't matter what venue is renting the building it can not be made off limits to CHL by any of the 30.06 notification methods, i.e. verbal, written or signage notification per SB273. Having police force CHL holders unloading their weapons is oxymoronic to the intent of being able to carry a concealed weapon since it's rendered useless. It may even be illegal, unless the police are going to claim it's for officer safety; but that horse may not trot, since they are specifically enforcing the illegal notice on the ticket and signage. Say a school puts up a sign to prevent a CHL from having their weapon loaded while in the parking lot and hires police to enforce it. Are you Ok with that? In my humble non-lawyer opinion Pasadena will lose this battle.

It's the law not logic that we are dealing with here. This is in no way covered by SB273 that I can see. It's a loophole. Courts are not supposed to close loopholes. SB273 covers carrying the gun and and specifically 30.06 warnings. It says nothing about ammo. Now violating the house rule would mean nothing and all they could do is ask you to leave if caught, no way to legally arrest or any legal consequence. This isn't a 30.06 issue. 30.06 has legal consequences on violation. This, and your school thing, doesn't.

[EEllis]

Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

All they have to do is have a non law enforcement to do the initial contact. The rule seems enforcable it just a house rule that would be enforced by trespassing off property someone who violated it.

I've never had them take ammo, where is that from?

Are you choosing to ignore that it is illegal for them to have the 30.06 sign up and prohibit concealed carry on city or county owned propert or are you just being obtuse for argument's sake?

Again it's just not a 30.06 sign or warning involved as far as it's been described. I think they are exploiting a loophole.

[mojo84]

Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

All they have to do is have a non law enforcement to do the initial contact. The rule seems enforcable it just a house rule that would be enforced by trespassing off property someone who violated it.

I've never had them take ammo, where is that from?

Are you choosing to ignore that it is illegal for them to have the 30.06 sign up and prohibit concealed carry on city or county owned propert or are you just being obtuse for argument's sake?

Again it's just not a 30.06 sign or warning involved as far as it's been described. I think they are exploiting a loophole.

I do not see the "loophole". It's just someone trying to skirt the law. It's especially egregious when they use cops to do their dirty work.

Using your "loophole" idea, the next requirement could be no guns with firing pins, slides, magazines, cylinders, hammers, springs etc. The effect is the same, preventing someone from carrying a concealed handgun on a government owned property when it's against the law to do so. Your kind of arguments is what creates some much disdain towards attorneys and makes the attorneys rich at other's expense.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I guess we'll just have to disagree. The building is owned by the City of Pasadena. Doesn't matter what venue is renting the building it can not be made off limits to CHL by any of the 30.06 notification methods, i.e. verbal, written or signage notification per SB273. Having police force CHL holders unloading their weapons is oxymoronic to the intent of being able to carry a concealed weapon since it's rendered useless. It may even be illegal, unless the police are going to claim it's for officer safety; but that horse may not trot, since they are specifically enforcing the illegal notice on the ticket and signage. Say a school puts up a sign to prevent a CHL from having their weapon loaded while in the parking lot and hires police to enforce it. Are you Ok with that? In my humble non-lawyer opinion Pasadena will lose this battle.

It's the law not logic that we are dealing with here. This is in no way covered by SB273 that I can see. It's a loophole. Courts are not supposed to close loopholes. SB273 covers carrying the gun and and specifically 30.06 warnings. It says nothing about ammo. Now violating the house rule would mean nothing and all they could do is ask you to leave if caught, no way to legally arrest or any legal consequence. This isn't a 30.06 issue. 30.06 has legal consequences on violation. This, and your school thing, doesn't.

If you are suggesting that SB273 won't cover ammo, then that's a non-starter. No, ammo was not mentioned but there is ample case law that deals with this type of attempt to avoid legislative intent. A city cannot set a minimum driving age of 21 years in violation of Texas law. What you are suggesting is that they could pass a city ordinance that makes it unlawful for someone under age 21 to put gasoline in a car. More importantly, there's no provision under state law for a promoter using public property to exclude persons for any reason related to ammo. Thus, there would be no criminal offense to be charged.

Chas.

[puma guy]

I guess we'll just have to disagree. The building is owned by the City of Pasadena. Doesn't matter what venue is renting the building it can not be made off limits to CHL by any of the 30.06 notification methods, i.e. verbal, written or signage notification per SB273. Having police force CHL holders unloading their weapons is oxymoronic to the intent of being able to carry a concealed weapon since it's rendered useless. It may even be illegal, unless the police are going to claim it's for officer safety; but that horse may not trot, since they are specifically enforcing the illegal notice on the ticket and signage. Say a school puts up a sign to prevent a CHL from having their weapon loaded while in the parking lot and hires police to enforce it. Are you Ok with that? In my humble non-lawyer opinion Pasadena will lose this battle.

It's the law not logic that we are dealing with here. This is in no way covered by SB273 that I can see. It's a loophole. Courts are not supposed to close loopholes. SB273 covers carrying the gun and and specifically 30.06 warnings. It says nothing about ammo. Now violating the house rule would mean nothing and all they could do is ask you to leave if caught, no way to legally arrest or any legal consequence. This isn't a 30.06 issue. 30.06 has legal consequences on violation. This, and your school thing, doesn't.

What you are stating it's not the intent of laws allowing CHL for a weapon to be loaded. Thus any government entity can make you unload the weapon through enforcement by a LEO via this loophole.

[EEllis]

I do not see the "loophole". It's just so.done trying to skirt the law. It's especially egregious when they use cops to do their dirty work.

Yes it is an attempt to skirt the law, that is basically the definition of a loophole. They figured out a way to effectively disarm people without taking away or preventing the carrying of a gun. It is not the equivalent to a 30.06 in that there is no LEGAL consequence to violating a house rule except expulsion. In the case of 30.06 there is such a consequence and in cases like these it is effectively the Government lying about the law.

Then there is the secondary issue of there being a real safety concern with a very few people at gun shows. There would be the one guy who carried concealed and whips out his gun to try a holster or mag, or to do a trade. If there is the slightest chance a person's gun would be handled at all at a show then it needs to be made safe and I find myself less than confident about all gun show attendees. This is not an endorsement just an acknowledgement of a reasonable concern.

[mojo84]

I do not see the "loophole". It's just so.done trying to skirt the law. It's especially egregious when they use cops to do their dirty work.

Yes it is an attempt to skirt the law, that is basically the definition of a loophole. They figured out a way to effectively disarm people without taking away or preventing the carrying of a gun. It is not the equivalent to a 30.06 in that there is no LEGAL consequence to violating a house rule except expulsion. In the case of 30.06 there is such a consequence and in cases like these it is effectively the Government lying about the law.

Then there is the secondary issue of there being a real safety concern with a very few people at gun shows. There would be the one guy who carried concealed and whips out his gun to try a holster or mag, or to do a trade. If there is the slightest chance a person's gun would be handled at all at a show then it needs to be made safe and I find myself less than confident about all gun show attendees. This is not an endorsement just an acknowledgement of a reasonable concern.

Hogwash!! A loophole is legal and skirting the law and violating the law is not legal. You are wrong and you will never admit it.

You can read the rest on my prior comment if you want as I am done playing your game.