Austin City Limits Festival

[AustinNative04]

AustinNative04,

Are you in agreement with the anti-gun restrictions enforced at the Austin City Limits Festival?

I'm not agreeing or advocating that there should be a no-guns policy. But, I would agree that having such a policy does not violate current law.

It doesn't? PC §30.06/07(e) doesn't apply?

No, I don't think so. I think you can discuss the possibility of amending the statute in the future, but I do not see the City of Austin as acting unlawfully in this situation. Here is my reasoning. BTW, in case you're wondering why I jumped in on this thread, IAAL who has attended a lot of ACL Fests.

First, both 30.06(e) and SB 273 deals with the 30.06 signage specifically, which is likely not in play at ACL. Again, the license grantor can set the terms and conditions of the license, and this is governed by contract law. I've never seen a 30.06 sign at ACL.

Second, even if C3 were to post a 30.06 sign, it would be the private entity doing the posting, rather than the governmental actor. As you are likely aware, this Attorney General concluded in KP-108 that a private entity may legally post a 30.06 sign (even if the crime of trespass under 30.06 is likely unenforceable).

If I were writing policy for C3 and the event organizers told me they want to exclude firearms, I would handle it this way: Make no firearms a contractual condition of the license to attend the festival. If security personnel stop a ticket holder who is violating the terms of the license, exclude the person from the event. If that person refuses to leave, charge that person with trespass under the general criminal trespass law or for disturbing the peace. No need to even mess with the language of 30.06, which likely doesn't even apply anyway, because as someone else mentioned, 30.06 refers to premises.

Again, I'm not advocating that there should be a no-guns policy, only indicating that I think there can be a no-guns policy.

[TexasTornado]

AustinNative04,

Are you in agreement with the anti-gun restrictions enforced at the Austin City Limits Festival?

I'm not agreeing or advocating that there should be a no-guns policy. But, I would agree that having such a policy does not violate current law.

It doesn't? PC §30.06/07(e) doesn't apply?

No, I don't think so. I think you can discuss the possibility of amending the statute in the future, but I do not see the City of Austin as acting unlawfully in this situation. Here is my reasoning. BTW, in case you're wondering why I jumped in on this thread, IAAL who has attended a lot of ACL Fests.

First, both 30.06(e) and SB 273 deals with the 30.06 signage specifically, which is likely not in play at ACL. Again, the license grantor can set the terms and conditions of the license, and this is governed by contract law. I've never seen a 30.06 sign at ACL.

Second, even if C3 were to post a 30.06 sign, it would be the private entity doing the posting, rather than the governmental actor. As you are likely aware, this Attorney General concluded in KP-108 that a private entity may legally post a 30.06 sign (even if the crime of trespass under 30.06 is likely unenforceable).

If I were writing policy for C3 and the event organizers told me they want to exclude firearms, I would handle it this way: Make no firearms a contractual condition of the license to attend the festival. If security personnel stop a ticket holder who is violating the terms of the license, exclude the person from the event. If that person refuses to leave, charge that person with trespass under the general criminal trespass law or for disturbing the peace. No need to even mess with the language of 30.06, which likely doesn't even apply anyway, because as someone else mentioned, 30.06 refers to premises.

Again, I'm not advocating that there should be a no-guns policy, only indicating that I think there can be a no-guns policy.

Except for that pesky line that states you can't exclude an LTC Holder on criminal trespass simply for having a weapon.

[AustinNative04]

Except for that pesky line that states you can't exclude an LTC Holder on criminal trespass simply for having a weapon.

I think I’m following your point—but correct me if I’m missing it. I recognize that this is park land, and generally speaking, a government entity couldn't exclude an LTC from a park solely for having a lawful firearm.

But, in this situation, Zilker Park is temporarily under the control of a private entity for purposes of the festival. Remember, access is controlled with fences and gates. I believe the LTC would be excluded for violating the terms and conditions of the license--terms set by the private entity, not the City.

[ScottDLS]

Public outdoor areas like walkways and open areas in parks (non-buildings) are not "premises" under 46.035, so you can not make them a 51% "premises" to ban carry. They can't ban carry with 30.06/7 and wands since it's a public park, but as you point out, that doesn't mean they won't try.

While held in Zilker Park, a municipal park, ACL Festival is not open to the general public without the purchase of a ticket. Access to the festival is controlled via fencing and secured points of entry.

The definition of a premises under the Penal Code notwithstanding, when an attendee purchases a ticket (i.e. a license to attend the event), that ticket holder agrees to the terms and conditions set forth by the event organizers, including policies prohibiting firearms. ACL Festival is organized and administered by C3 Presents. C3's policies regarding weapons is articulated in the FAQ section of the ACL Festival website: http://www.aclfestival.com/information/#faqs-ticket.

There will be security staff and APD officers on duty patting down and/or wanding attendees; there always is. It would be safe to assume that you will be refused entry if security personnel become aware you are carrying a firearm.

Yep that's what I expected. You can't be prosecuted if you sneak in with your CCW, but if they physically prevent you from entering there's nothing you can do. It may be possible to ask the AG to hold that Austin PD be barred from enforcing the ban and perhaps even to force the city cease allowing lessee's to enforce this provision....I'm not holding my breath, although a similar suit forced the State Fair in Dallas to allow CCW.

[AustinNative04]

Yep that's what I expected. You can't be prosecuted if you sneak in with your CCW, but if they physically prevent you from entering there's nothing you can do. It may be possible to ask the AG to hold that Austin PD be barred from enforcing the ban and perhaps even to force the city cease allowing lessee's to enforce this provision....I'm not holding my breath, although a similar suit forced the State Fair in Dallas to allow CCW.

Totally agree with that. But like you, I wouldn't hold my breath for the AG. I just don't think the current law is strong enough to compel either C3 or the City to do anything differently.

[Abraham]

AustinNative04,

Since you're on this forum, would I be correct in assuming you're pro-gun?

Or...?

Either way, thanks for your valuable input.

[AustinNative04]

AustinNative04,

Since you're on this forum, would I be correct in assuming you're pro-gun?

Or...?

Either way, thanks for your valuable input.

Yes sir, I like all of the Bill of Rights.

[TexasTornado]

Except for that pesky line that states you can't exclude an LTC Holder on criminal trespass simply for having a weapon.

I think I’m following your point—but correct me if I’m missing it. I recognize that this is park land, and generally speaking, a government entity couldn't exclude an LTC from a park solely for having a lawful firearm.

But, in this situation, Zilker Park is temporarily under the control of a private entity for purposes of the festival. Remember, access is controlled with fences and gates. I believe the LTC would be excluded for violating the terms and conditions of the license--terms set by the private entity, not the City.

Buying a ticket is not the same thing as signing a contract and even if it were, they would still have to notify based on 30.06/30.07 which is not enforceable due to the location. Basically they can tell you whatever they'd like and you can pretend they are a figment of your imagination, because even though they are temporary in control they have no legal right to bar you from the location.

[casp625]

KP-108 references a non profit entity that leases government property, has its own board of directors, and the city is at arms-length from making any policies. How is that similar to a city park being utilized for an event?

[rotor]

KP-108 references a non profit entity that leases government property, has its own board of directors, and the city is at arms-length from making any policies. How is that similar to a city park being utilized for an event?

Same question I had. So, someone needs to file a complaint with the city, when they refuse to do anything submit to the AG and see what happens.

[Skiprr]

Except for that pesky line that states you can't exclude an LTC Holder on criminal trespass simply for having a weapon.

I think I’m following your point—but correct me if I’m missing it. I recognize that this is park land, and generally speaking, a government entity couldn't exclude an LTC from a park solely for having a lawful firearm.

But, in this situation, Zilker Park is temporarily under the control of a private entity for purposes of the festival. Remember, access is controlled with fences and gates. I believe the LTC would be excluded for violating the terms and conditions of the license--terms set by the private entity, not the City.

Uh...no. PC §30.06/07 doesn't deal exclusively with signage; they define under what conditions a license holder commits an offense by carrying under GC 411. That includes descriptions of both written and oral notification. Item (e) under both sections is quite explicit:

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.

Makes no legal difference whatsoever what C3 does: fence, wanding, x-ray machines, a town crier shouting "no guns" every 30 seconds. The property is owned by a governmental entity and the law cannot be placed in abeyance because a commercial entity has temporarily rented, leased, or come to some other arrangement with that governmental entity.

Unless Zilker Park is on the grounds of a school or educational institution, or within 1,000 feet of a location designated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as a place of execution, there are, IMHO, no legal grounds upon which valid LTC holders can be excluded. C3's legal option would be to move the festival to property that is not owned by a governmental entity.

The entity at fault here would be the City of Austin. I do not live in Austin and have no dog in this hunt. But if I did live in Austin and wanted to attend this festival, I would do exactly as has been recommended: first file an inquiry/complaint with the municipal government then, when no useful response is forthcoming, gather evidence at get it to the Attorney General post haste. Won't help this year, but may stop the nonsense in forthcoming years.

You brought up KP-108. That request (RQ-0097-KP) specifically dealt with agencies with offices located on land owned by a city, and those agencies "are the only entities located on the specific properties in question, that no governmental offices are located on the properties..." The request and resultant opinion dealt with two issues: GC §411.209 and civil penalties for improper restriction of licensed handgun carriers, and PC §30.06/07 about whether whether LTC holders can be excluded from entry.

As to the first part, one thing that AG Paxton writes is:

Section 411.209 does not address whether a private entity, including an independent nonprofit entity, may provide notice to license holders that the carrying of handguns is prohibited in its offices. If a private entity is operating jointly with a governmental entity or has been hired by the governmental entity to perform certain governmental functions, fact questions could arise about which entity effectively posted a notice prohibiting the carrying of guns. However, under the facts you describe, the private, nonprofit entity appears to have an arms-length agreement to lease city property and is not otherwise affiliated with the city.

I'd posit that an annual festival, that occurs only six days per year, held on the grounds of an active, public, municipal park and whose website states, "Thanks to our partnership with the Austin Parks Foundation, ACL Fest fans have contributed more than $20 million towards the improvement of Zilker Park as well as parks all across the city," is in no way operating offices on this public land, or operating at an "an arms-length agreement" with the city.

As to the matter of the ability to deny entrance to the government-owned property, AG Paxton closes the opinion with:

When construing statutes, courts recognize that the words the Legislature chooses are "the surest guide to legislative intent." When possible, courts will discern legislative intent from the plain meaning of the words chosen, and only when words are ambiguous will courts "resort to rules of construction or extrinsic aids." The plain language of subsections 30.06(e) and 30.07(e) make an exception if the property on which the license holder carries a gun "is owned or leased by a governmental entity." These statutes make no exception to that exception for property owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity, and to conclude that carrying a handgun on such property is prohibited would therefore require reading language into the statute beyond what the Legislature included.

[AustinNative04]

Skiprr, I respect those arguments, and you stated them very well. I'm simply not convinced they will carry the legal weight needed to allow an LTC to carry onto the premises. I would be in agreement with you if the City were the actor, but that's not the case here.

I simply do not see anything in the law that restricts C3 from enforcing this policy. I don't think an LTC holder could be prosecuted under § 30.06 for carrying past a 30.06 sign, but I also don't think § 30.06 is central to the issue.

Perhaps let me put it this way: As I read the law, I do not believe that § 30.06 is the sole means to lawfully exclude an LTC from an area that is under the control of a private party. This is true even if that area is a public park, where the governmental entity has contracted away control of access to the area to a private entity.

I could be absolutely wrong, and hopefully I am. This might be something where we simply disagree on the application of the law, which is perfectly reasonable given the status of the current statutes.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable with you here--just offering my unsolicited opinion.

[Skiprr]

Wholly understand. That's why I think that, even though it would have no effect this year, the matter should be taken to the Attorney General.

[tommyg]

Just boycott the festival the traffic and drunk drivers have already ruined it

[Soap]

I just talked to someone who has been going for years. He carries every time he goes. He said they just check bags and things. He also said there is no offcial signs reguarding permit carry. All he has seen is "weapons are prohibited". The website doesn't reference law either. It sounds more like a request.