Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

[SlowDave]

Can anyone help me out with interpretation of GC411.203? It states:

This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business.

As I understand, this provision applies to the employer/employee relationship, but that would be more clear if the word "persons" was changed to "employees." Someone could attempt to use this as meaning that any employer can prohibit the public from carrying a concealed weapon into their establishment under 411.203 and therefore not be subject to restrictions in 30.06, such as the government property restriction. My argument against this would be that if 411.203 was intended to have that meaning, there would be no need for the entire 30.06 section, and it would conflict with 30.06(e) (restriction on gov't property posting 30.06).

Is my interpretation and logic correct and are there other or better arguments as to why 411.203 cannot mean "the public" when it says "persons"?

Thanks in advance,
SlowD

[seamusTX]

I agree with your interpretation. However, I do not know for a fact that that is what the legislature intended (I did not live in Texas at the time and was not paying attention). I also do not know of any case law that clarifies the interpretation of this bill.

As to why the law says persons instead of employees, it may be intended to cover contractors and other agents who are not statutory employees, or it may be simple legislative carelessness.

- JIm

[Charles L. Cotton]

Gov't Code §411.203 was/is a meaningless "feel good" provision that was necessary to get SB60 passed. The question was asked during debate whether an employer would have to right to prohibit his employees from carrying guns into/onto his property. The answer was yes, SB60 doesn't do away with that private property right, nor did it impact the employer/employee relationship, but some wanted to make sure that was clear in the statute. Therefore, §411.203 was added and it is nothing more than codified legislative intent.

§411.203 does not authorize an employer to prohibit a non-employee from carrying on their property. The only way to do that is TPC §30.06, or TPC §30.05 for non-CHL's. Government or "public" employers cannot use TPC §30.06, except in very limited circumstances, so they all they can control are employees and non-CHL's.

Chas.

[Darwood]

In San Antonio, the Education Service Center Region 20 has 30.06 signs at most if not all the entrance doors. The signs are white vinyl lettering on tinted glass. As far as I know students never visit the service center. At best only instructors go there. As far as I understand Region 20 is part of the regional education system and should be considered part of the Texas government. Please correct me if i am wrong.

[roberts]

As far as I understand Region 20 is part of the regional education system and should be considered part of the Texas government.

Do they get government tax money?

[Darwood]

As far as I understand Region 20 is part of the regional education system and should be considered part of the Texas government.

Do they get government tax money?

I should know the answer to that question but I don't. Here is what I found off the web site:

"Funding

Because we are a public agency and cannot levy taxes, the programs and services we provide are financially supported by federal, state and school district funds."

http://portal.esc20.net/portal/page/por ... philosophy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far as I can tell the Regional Service Centers are part of the Texas Education Agency, but I'm not certain of the exact relationship.

[barres]

The ESC's are in the gray area of what constitutes a school. Students do visit the ESC's for testing and other services, but they are not regularly there. Much like students visit the zoos around the state, but a zoo isn't a school. ESC's are governed by TEA, but they are a support structure for schools, paid for by some TEA funds, but mostly by contracts with local school districts.

My personal opinion, and I visit several ESC's on a somewhat regular basis, is that they are not schools, but private corporations regulated by the Education Code. I would, therefore (and have, I've been to the ESC for Region 20), treat the 30.06 signs as valid, unless they lease their premises from a governmental entity. IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, etc.

[Darwood]

The ESC's are in the gray area of what constitutes a school. Students do visit the ESC's for testing and other services, but they are not regularly there. Much like students visit the zoos around the state, but a zoo isn't a school. ESC's are governed by TEA, but they are a support structure for schools, paid for by some TEA funds, but mostly by contracts with local school districts.

My personal opinion, and I visit several ESC's on a somewhat regular basis, is that they are not schools, but private corporations regulated by the Education Code. I would, therefore (and have, I've been to the ESC for Region 20), treat the 30.06 signs as valid, unless they lease their premises from a governmental entity. IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, etc.

Thank you. I think that sounds like a good assessment. Speaking about students, there are some here today.

[dsw3131]

In San Angelo, the Tom Green County Library has a 30.06 sign posted for the whole building. The library takes up the entire first floor, and some state offices, like vehicle registration, are on the second. The building does not contain any county clerk offices, although it used to. The sign is outdated and invalid.

Also, the Justice Center where trials are held downtown, has a 30.06 sign posted for the whole building. The first floor contains no courtrooms or clerk offices. You don't have to pass through a metal detector until you go upstairs to the courtrooms. There is no reason the entire first floor should be restricted to CHL holders.

[TexasAggie2006]

City of Houston Public Library building downtown has what looks to be a compliant 30.06 sign. It has big white letters on tinted windows in both Spanish and English on both front entrances. It also has a gun buster sign. I don't believe it is a legal ban unless it has some designation for school field trips.

I was there this week and the text isn't compliant. Also like others said it's government property.

Do you happen to know if there are metal detectors at this location? The Clayton Library is doing the same thing and I'm speaking with them about it. They have metal detectors at the front so I can't just ignore the sign. (not that I would....) Does anyone know if this is standard across all of the City of Houston Libraries?

Thanks!

[dicion]

They have metal detectors at the front so I can't just ignore the sign. (not that I would....)

I would

A non-compliant sign does not exist to me, and will be ignored.

If any place actually seriously believes that Concealed Handguns should not be carried there, they should at least spend the 2 minutes it takes to look up the laws, and post a proper sign.
A non-compliant sign to me, shows a half-brained approach. More like a "Look! We're banning guns to try to show we care! (but we really dont, at least not enough to actually look up the laws)' to the public.

We're supposed to know, and follow these laws 100% of the time, or face serious repercussions. They should know and follow them as well.

[Purplehood]

They have metal detectors at the front so I can't just ignore the sign. (not that I would....)

I would

A non-compliant sign does not exist to me, and can safely be ignored.

I might agree with you in principle, but not with the statement "can safely be ignored".

[dicion]

Yes, true, which Is why I changed it right after I posted it :P However, you beat me to it! :P

[TexasAggie2006]

Yes, true, which Is why I changed it right after I posted it :P However, you beat me to it! :P

Would you do this even if it meant setting of the metal detectors? I dont' think you would be wrong to do so, but I dont' want to announce to the whole library that I'm carrying.

I dont' have my plastic yet so I'm going to try to talk to them while I'm waiting on it. I have time to go through other means first. (though others who already have their plastic should not be restricted during that time) I'm just wondering if it is a policy of the library system or just Clayton to have metal detectors.

[dicion]

Metal Detectors are a different story

Not because it changes the law, but because it increases the chance that you'll take 'the ride'.
And Unless I have a few extra grand in the bank account for a lawyer at that exact time, I just won't go there
With a properly concealed weapon, the only time an improper sign should come into play, would be if you had to USE that concealed weapon. And In that case, you're probably taking the ride anyways.

As mentioned in the other thread, I'd fight it administratively (talk to librarian, city, etc) before I'd try to force a fight in the courtroom.
However, case law makes it easier in the future for everyone else. Just gotta find someone to be the guinea pig test case