Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

[texasparamedic]

Were do you find the actual statute for this. I believe that I have one but want to make sure before I post.

[seamusTX]

The Texas Penal Code is here: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

It looks like all the 2007 changes are on that web site now.

- Jim

[texasparamedic]

This is long but I still need help

I know that I am new to all this, but I am not new to laws, rules, regs ect... I have not been able to find anywhere that outlines what a city / municipality can and can not do as far as a 30.06 or banning weapons from city buildings. So far the only thing I have been able to come up with is that I can not carry into a building (with or without a 30.06 sign) used for court purposes on the day of court proceedings. (In my case the local city hall councils chambers doubles as the court chambers once a month), A "church" or "Place of worship", a nursing home or hospital, any form of school or educational facility, a Bar, Pooling place on the day of elections, a jail, within 1000ft of an execution., without written approval by the business owner. The 30.06 rule tells me that there is someone inside (granted their misguidance or personal feelings) does not want me to carry a firearm inside that building. I may have got off the subject allot but I am still confused about all this. Is there something specific that says that a city can not post a 30.06 or when it is appropriate for them to post.

Here is my situation... Back in August of 07, My boss found out that I was carrying a firearm while on duty as a paramedic. I have done this for years and had a previous chiefs approval. How it was discovered is a very long story that is completely my fault and stupidity on my part. The boss reviewed the policy which at the time relayed that only licensed persons may carry a firearm while on duty and must have a written letter of approval by the boss. The new boss didn't like this policy and changed it in fear that it would set the department up for liability if I defended myself while on duty. I understood his concern and attempted to help him understand my point of view with no success. I complied with his new policy which states "Only Certified Peace Officers will be allowed to have a gun/firearm in their possession while on duty at any City of Pilot Point Fire Department facility. Personnel that are authorized to have guns/weapons will keep them holstered at all times". During September 07 the boss was told by another staff member that I was still continuing to carry and was written up. While this was not true and I appealed the writeup and lost. The information that was given was that I left in the morning and displayed my firearm. During the appeals process I told the boss that I had my firearm in my vehicle that was parked in the parking lot on the day / night in question. The night in question, I had a long time friend who is a gunsmith took my firearm to do some work, so I did not even have the firearm the morning in question. His argument was that he does not want firearms in or around the department.

The long story will come to an end and I will get to my point soon....

Although I am not happy with this decision (and discovered during the appeals process that there was and still is other issues / staff at hand causing, directing and leading the issues) I discontinued the fight for the time being.

Now to my point.. The boss found and heard from someone about the 30.06 rules / law. Did some research and had complaint signs printed. The problems with the signs. The front door has a complaint 30.06 on a clear glass door in white letters. The back door is not complaint in my opinion because it is a white / off white door with white lettering. Obvious not contrasting colors. The 2 other doors one on each side of the building do not have signs at all along with the 8 large bay doors and 2 doors from the bays into the building. No other city building has 30.06 signs posted and the city employee policy manual has both no employees can have firearms except cops and another section has only licensed person of the state can have firearms. No statement in the policy manual has the 30.06 wording. While I feel this is an improper posting, it is his (the boss) request that no one has a firearm around the building.

I personally feel that it has exposed myself and my coworkers to potential harm inside our building because now everyone that drives by, may be unhappy with us, or whatever the cause may be know that we do not have any means of protecting ourselves. It has happened once to me already in the past and really do not want to be placed in this position again.

[WildBill]

This is long but I still need help

Here is my situation... Now to my point.. The front door has a complaint 30.06 on a clear glass door in white letters.

So, what is your question?

[Texasdoc]

City hall in La Grange is Posted with a 30.06 and the City manager told me that it is legal as the city council meets there once a month, You have to go in there to pay your power and water bills.

He stated that he would have to ask the City Attorney, She called me and told me that it is legally posted as they have that right to ban CHL holders from carrying in city hall.


Doc

[seamusTX]

Texasparamedic, I posted the link to the Texas Penal Code above. Section 30.06 states:

(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.

The two possible exceptions are city or county-owned hospitals and meetings of governmental bodies. That exception is given in 46.035(i).

Hospitals, churches, amusement parks and government meetings are off-limits only if posted with a 30.06 sign. That is a change from the original CHL law.

(The law on meetings clearly means a meeting place at the time of the meeting, not any place where a meeting ever happened or could happen.)

All of the above is the law. If a city or county posts 30.06 signs and the police chief or sheriff is willing to arrest on that basis, you run the risk of becoming a test case.

I hope that answers your question.

- Jim

[Kalrog]

This is long but I still need help

I would ask for a more specific question from you as well, but let me give you a general thought. IANAL.

First - they can make it a condition of employment that you not carry. You lose (short version)

Second - Do you work for a private company or a governmental operation? If private, they can post and it is legally enforceable. If public, the posting is not enforceable. They can post but it has no meaning at all. See the first point in either case.

[texasparamedic]

To answer a few questions.

I work for a City Ran Fire Department. My main question is what is the legality of the signs being posted only at the FD and not on all the city buildings. The postings were a decision made by the boss not the city council and since it is a city owned building, I do not think that the boss can legally post the signs. As far as being banned from work as part of the employment condition I had a good idea about this and have not... REPEAT... HAVE NOT... carried while on duty or carried into the station, since the rule has changed... My question here is that there is 3 versions of this ruling. 2 saying no and 1 saying yes, but everything I have read says that the 30.06 statement must be in the policy manual if the employer wants to ban. Is this not correct? I am not going to fight for the policy change right now because I do understand and partially agree with the bosses decision on why he doesn't want his staff carrying while on duty. On the other hand, I really do not like the great big sign posted on the door that tells the scum of the earth, my staff including myself are unarmed, come get us.... I do want to fight to have the signs removed.

Thanks for the help and direction.

[Kalrog]

since the rule has changed... My question here is that there is 3 versions of this ruling. 2 saying no and 1 saying yes, but everything I have read says that the 30.06 statement must be in the policy manual if the employer wants to ban. Is this not correct?

What rule change and what 3 versions? Yes or no to what (specificity is important here - we are talking legal minutia).

A statement conforming to 30.06 wording does NOT need to be in the employee manual in order to be enforceable legally. But a governmental agency (which a city and everything the city own is) cannot enforce 30.06 regardless of where it is posted. Posted can be wording in the manual. Posting can be a sign. Posting can be on a card given out. Posting can even be verbal. The first 3 require specific wording. The second one requires additional things like size and colors. The final one can be just about anything.

Short version: You cannot be prosecuted for carrying on duty. You can be fired (but you knew that).

[Charles L. Cotton]

City hall in La Grange is Posted with a 30.06 and the City manager told me that it is legal as the city council meets there once a month, You have to go in there to pay your power and water bills.

He stated that he would have to ask the City Attorney, She called me and told me that it is legally posted as they have that right to ban CHL holders from carrying in city hall.


Doc

Here goes another Open Records Request to the City. They're wrong and I'm starting to think ORR's are a way to call the bluff of cities pulling this stuff.

Chas.

[ELB]

Here goes another Open Records Request to the City. They're wrong and I'm starting to think ORR's are a way to call the bluff of cities pulling this stuff.

Chas.

How does this work? How does an ORR call their bluff? I'd be very interested to know this tactic. Might prove useful some day!

elb

[ELB]

OK, my two cents:

...The new boss didn't like this policy and changed it in fear that it would set the department up for liability if I defended myself while on duty.

If this is what your new boss said, your new boss is scum. He (I assume it's "he") just said the city's dollars are more important than your life and limb. I'll wager the does not make sure there are cops standing AT YOUR SIDE at all times to make sure you don't get shot on a run..You do what you have to do, but sounds like time to find a new place to work.

I personally feel that it has exposed myself and my coworkers to potential harm inside our building because now everyone that drives by, may be unhappy with us, or whatever the cause may be know that we do not have any means of protecting ourselves. It has happened once to me already in the past and really do not want to be placed in this position again.

I interpret everything you've said to be, "some supervisor in the Fire Department posted 30.06-ish signs on the fire station, and that doesn't look legal (it is city property), nor smart (tells every knucklehead driving by that there are unarmed firefighters inside)." If I have interpreted correctly, then yes I agree emphatically, what he has done is both illegal (unfortunatley there's no penalty for this), and stupid (ditto, especially for government stupidity).

Given your seemingly precarious position with the management already, not sure what you personally can do at this point. Would be nice if we had some kind of activist organization that could help push back on the small cases, not just the landmark-level stuff. Some scummy outfit like Code Pink chains itself to Marine recruiter's doors, their city holds the cops off for hours on end, gives them a slap on wrist, then rewards them with city-sponsored parking places in front of the recruiting office and free loudspeaker permits, and the city mayor leans on the building owner to not renew the Marines' lease. We have a certified good-guy, a non-felonious tax-paying, paramedic who wants and needs to be able to defend himself, and his city gives him a buncha crap. Grrr. [MUST NOT THROW COMPUTER THRU WINDOW! SCARES WIFE AND DOG WHEN I DO THAT!]

I will be interested to see if Charles shares his ORR strategy with us. Perhaps some other CHL'er can inquire of your city government as to why they are posting signs they are not authorized to have.

Good luck.

elb

p.s. Given that the state/city/county governments were already set straight once by the legislature regarding concealed carry by citizens, would be helpful, interesting, and righteous if the next legislature extended this logic and statute and reminded them that state/county/city employees are ALSO citizens, and may not forbid them from legally carrying at anytime, on duty or not. Would fit nicely with the law repealing pretty much all the other restrictions on places CHL'ers can go while carrying.

elb

[texasparamedic]

What rule change and what 3 versions? Yes or no to what (specificity is important here - we are talking legal minutia).

Sorry. The rule I was referring to was our departmental SOG.
The 3 versions are the 2 in the employee manual and the 1 in the department SOG manual.

My question here is that there is 3 versions of this ruling. 2 saying no and 1 saying yes, but everything I have read says that the 30.06 statement must be in the policy manual if the employer wants to ban. Is this not correct?

This was the yes or no question that is vague.... It was answered in another post, and to my understanding a employer does not have to have the 30.06 wording in the policy. A statement of "No weapons allowed by employees" is sufficient.

on a personal note: I have a fair understanding of the laws and such, and besides my personal confliction with the sign posting at the department, I just want to make sure that I follow the rules/laws and help be a solution to the problem not and not be the problem.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here goes another Open Records Request to the City. They're wrong and I'm starting to think ORR's are a way to call the bluff of cities pulling this stuff.

Chas.

How does this work? How does an ORR call their bluff? I'd be very interested to know this tactic. Might prove useful some day!

elb

Essentially, you are requiring them to produce documents that support their decision to post 30.06 signs, or that support their opinion that it is an enforceable sign. Quite often, the response is going to be "none" and they really hate having to say that. I plan to use the information in other efforts.

Chas.

[WildBill]

Here goes another Open Records Request to the City. They're wrong and I'm starting to think ORR's are a way to call the bluff of cities pulling this stuff.

Chas.

How does this work? How does an ORR call their bluff? I'd be very interested to know this tactic. Might prove useful some day!

elb

Essentially, you are requiring them to produce documents that support their decision to post 30.06 signs, or that support their opinion that it is an enforceable sign. Quite often, the response is going to be "none" and they really hate having to say that. I plan to use the information in other efforts.

Chas.

If you did get a document what would it be? Meeting minutes talking about posting? A letter from the city attorney?