dhranch wrote:What are the cures for this wrongness, and how do we see one or more applied?
There are two approaches to removing 30.06 signs from government-owned property (I should say our property, which we have entrusted to the government):
1. Write to the person in charge, be it the district attorney, city attorney, or whomever you can identify. Point to the text of PC 30.06 which limits government entities to posting in very restricted circumstances.
If that doesn't work, go to the city council, county commissioners court, or similar body to make the same request.
This has actually worked a few times.
2. Take the entity to court and get an order for the signs to be removed.
Municipalities can argue that certain buildings contain courtrooms or that government meetings are held there. Overcoming those arguments could lead to large legal bills unless some lawyer were to take the case pro bono.
- Jim
Fear, anger, hatred, and greed. The devil's all-you-can-eat buffet.
[quote="Keith B"] FROM FEB. 02, 2009 6:53PM
Kieth B.....
Kieth B.... EDITED TO ADD: This looks like the old version of the sign, so, see below:
Now, even though the sign may not be really legal, the hospital local police and others may feel it is. If you are found out, then you may 'beat the rap, but not the ride' and be detained, taken in etc. until you can prove otherwise. Your mileage may vary.
[ *] In reference to the above, I have always had respect for the Law and have always believed in the JUSTICE SYSTEM. I have never been in jail, and I have never set a foot in a courtroom, and I have never been in front of a judge, and never have had to hire a Lawyer. What I'm trying to say is that in reference to a NOT LEGAL 30.06 SIGN, posted at entrance of a hospital and supposedly I would ," for instance" ignore it, because it's not a legal sign according to Penal Code Section 30.06, But or AND somehow , for whatever reason I'm found out, and the hospital police were to detain me because according to" THEIR interpretation " of the Law, they and others may feel it is a legal sign, even though it doesn't contain the correct language. Wouldn't the authorities REALLY make sure that they are right before arresting me? Wouldn't I be considered innocent until proven guilty? And if taken for a ride, wouldn't that be considered a violation of my rights? And if the D.A. would also feel that the sign is legal, wouldn't somewhere along the RIDE, some authority in the JUSTICE SYSTEM, like, maybe the JUDGE would KNOW the law and be on my side? If I haven't committed a violation, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, why would I need to hire a lawyer? Wouldn't the LAW itself be my defense without having a Lawyer point out the LAW to those who are suppose to be the LAW?
Kieth B, please understand that I'm not joking and I'm not trying to seem like a smart nor ignorant brat with my questions. I admit that I don't know the answer to my questions and that to knowledgeable persons of the law, my whole posting, will seem foolish, my apologies for my ignorance. Bye.
"It seems that many local governments post unenforceable signs"
If you take the ride, it's obvious they are enforceable - just not worded correctly.
All of the hand wringing and anguish over the wording being exact in order to be enforceable seems rather silly. When it comes to this sort of nonsense, they, the local government, can act capriciously as they care to.
You say, Mr. CHL, our 30.06 sign doesn't belong here - too bad! You say, it's also not worded correctly - tough! Officer, put the cuffs on him and take him to jail! We can do whatever we want - stinking signage particulars only apply when we say they apply! Got it!!
However, we as CHL holders are required to be precisely accurate in our dealings.
I will bet that 95% of the population, if they hear or read in the paper that "a man with a gun was arrested at City Hall," will assume that the person was a criminal bent on mayhem.
I have never heard a candidate for local office say that if he is elected, he will work to get the bogus signs taken down, or revoke an unenforceable ordinance (both of which we have here).
The reason for that is simple: not enough voters care, and such a view could easily be portrayed as "nuts" by an opponent.
Some libertarian candidates, if they were elected, would try to end these unconstitutional restrictions; but voting libertarian is written off as a wasted vote.
- Jim
Fear, anger, hatred, and greed. The devil's all-you-can-eat buffet.
Hi all - I have a question concerning a 30.06 sign I ran up against in the city of Killeen. I was off to a Monster Truck Show at Killeen's Rodeo Arena which is part of the city's Civic and Conference Center (according to their website) and noticed adjacent to the ticket booth, hanging on a chainlink fence at the entry, a 30.06 sign. The signage appeared consistent with the proper wording,… as required by law and since I am not one to test the law, I did not enter. My question is if this is a city owed facility is it legal to post such a sign. I ask because I am not aware of this type of facility mentioned in the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws. What can I do to very if this sign is legally posted, and if not what can I do to have it removed?
It might be noteworthy to mention that this is the first 30.06 I have seen posted in Killeen that I have ever questioned. Also I would just like to mention that this is my first post to the site. I have been hanging out here for about 1.5 years now, could not have made it through the long wait for my license without it. This is a great site and I am proud to be a part of it, thanks!
csabrass wrote:Hi all - I have a question concerning a 30.06 sign I ran up against in the city of Killeen. I was off to a Monster Truck Show at Killeen's Rodeo Arena which is part of the city's Civic and Conference Center (according to their website) and noticed adjacent to the ticket booth, hanging on a chainlink fence at the entry, a 30.06 sign. The signage appeared consistent with the proper wording,… as required by law and since I am not one to test the law, I did not enter. My question is if this is a city owed facility is it legal to post such a sign. I ask because I am not aware of this type of facility mentioned in the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws. What can I do to very if this sign is legally posted, and if not what can I do to have it removed?
It might be noteworthy to mention that this is the first 30.06 I have seen posted in Killeen that I have ever questioned. Also I would just like to mention that this is my first post to the site. I have been hanging out here for about 1.5 years now, could not have made it through the long wait for my license without it. This is a great site and I am proud to be a part of it, thanks!
If the facility is owned by the city, then the 30.06 posting is invalid. However, these events are attended by professionals that are part of the MTRA, so it could be considered a professional sporting event and would be off limits.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
How do City ordinances play into this? I recently had to go to City Hall and to the FIre Station in Port Arthur,and this sign is on both of those locations,as well as ALL other pieces of city property.
Is this a valid or legally enforceable sign?
JL
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.
jlangton wrote:How do City ordinances play into this? I recently had to go to City Hall and to the FIre Station in Port Arthur,and this sign is on both of those locations,as well as ALL other pieces of city property.
Is this a valid or legally enforceable sign?
JL
The smoking one maybe, the gun possession one no, (at least not per a city ordinance as Texas has no law allowing preemption by a city.)
However, if the City Hall has a court in there, then maybe per the state statutes.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
As a note, neither of these ordinances exist in the code listed as enacted Aug. 12, 2008 for Port Arthur on Municode http://www.municode.com/resources/gatew ... 444&sid=43" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
Thanks Keith,I need to check into whether there is a court,etc in that building,but I don't think there is.
I'm not a smoker,and I knew that one about smoking was enforceable.
JL
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.
I searched "firearms" in that Municode link,and they apparently moved their ordinance.
There's something listed in section 62-62 referring to definitions of "property",and section 62-64 reads like the sign posted above.
JL
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.
That is a great link. Made me go looking for San Antonio code stuff and found this:
Sec. 21-157. Carrying of weapons, including concealed handguns, on city-owned premises prohibited; posting of notice.
(a) It is the intent of the city council to prohibit any person other than a commissioned security officer employed by the city and licensed peace officers from carrying or possessing weapons including concealed handguns on city-owned premises, including city-owned buildings, parking garages, lots, and other parking areas but excluding city-owned or operated public parks, streets and sidewalks.
(b) It is the intent of the city council that the term weapon shall include a firearm, handgun, club, illegal knife, knife, and any prohibited weapon listed in Texas Penal Code Section 46.05(a) and have the same meaning as said items are defined in Section 46.01, Texas Penal Code.
(c) The city council directs the city manager, or his designee to post the appropriate signs and such other notice, in accordance with Section 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code (the Criminal Trespass Law), to carry out the city council's above-stated intent.
(d) The city manager is authorized to take all steps reasonable and necessary to deny entry or continued presence on city-owned premises to all such persons possessing weapons including concealed handguns, including prosecution of such violators for the offense of criminal trespass.
(Res. No. 95-52-66, 12-21-95)
So, other than quoting the wrong section (30.05 vs. the nearer to applicable 30.06), and also going against 30.06(e) which makes an exception to 30.06 for any government owned or leased buildings and therefore going directly against the state legislature, which as I understand, is not able to be pre-empted by local jurisdictions, they're fine.
On another front, I was about to contact some county people (DA, etc.) about some inappropriate postings on government buildings, but not sure what to do with this, since the city code is instructing at least city (if not county) agents to inappropriately post their locations. Sheesh. Can anyone provide me some direction here?
I'm guessing the number 12-21-95 in the ordinance is the date that it was enacted or went into effect. This kind of thing was very common in 1995, the year that the CHL law went into effect.
At that time 30.06 did not exist. The Legislature passed it in the next session to circumvent this kind of ordinance.
The ordinance is legally invalid, but that doesn't mean you can't be arrested under it.
I think the appropriate first step would be to write to the city attorney.
I'm guessing the city will stonewall. Likely the county DA will dodge the issue, since it would not be in his jurisdiction.
Thanks for the reply Jim. I agree with your interpretation of the date, and appreciate the perspective that the city attorney would probably dodge. The issue with the county DA is separate and deals with an earlier post re: Bexar County Tax Assessor-Collector being posted. She may still dodge the issue, but it won't be because of this San Antonio code.
BTW, on the way home, I noticed a sign for a city councilman running for election. I think now is the time to get educated and start making some hay for candidates who will stand up for the rights of citizens. It may be futile, but at the very least, I'll know I've done my best to my objective, and at the best, I might make a difference. Any other San Antonians on here who want in on this?
