I don't interpret the statutes in exactly the way that you do. I agree that they can ask for the information, and I think the CHL holder can legally refuse. At that point, I think the statute is clear by preventing government owned or leased property from posting 30.06 that the legislature's intent was to allow CHL holders to carry on such property. The law doesn't provide an exception for private parties leasing land from a government entity. The property remains owned by the government entity, thus the statute still applies. Allowing CHL holders into the event is part of the price of getting the favorable lease from the government entity. If they wish to exclude CHL holders they can lease privately owned property, or buy their own property.
At the point where the CHL refuses to allow his information to be collected, they should have no choice but to let them through, as clearly their stated reasons for the policy are made moot by virtue of the fact that they "shred the information at the end of the day."
srothstein wrote:
Yes, they both can do so right now and you would have the same option there as at the state fair. Say no and leave the property or comply. There is no law forbidding their doing so, and being real private property (as opposed to the state fair being on government owned property), they have an even stronger claim on what they can do by policy.
There is an obvious fallacy in the logic of the people who claim that they will only show their CHL to a police officer. The State Fair is the perfect example of why. They cannot post 30.06, but can bar anyone not licensed from entering while armed and are using metal detectors. They do not need to haev peace officers at every gate (I know they do, but there is no requirement for it). The security guards could legally and properly deny you entry for refusing to show them you CHL.
The collecting of information is wrong and possibly dangerous to you. As far as I can tell, it is legal as of this point in time. I don't like the compromise of collecting it with their word on shredding it (I don't trust them any further than they trust me - trust must work both ways). I am still in favor of a law forbidding anyone from collecting personal information off a driver's license, ID card, or CHL. It should be written in such a way as to allow you to waive your right to privacy but no one could deny you any benefit for not consenting to the collection.
jamullinstx wrote:I don't interpret the statutes in exactly the way that you do. I agree that they can ask for the information, and I think the CHL holder can legally refuse. At that point, I think the statute is clear by preventing government owned or leased property from posting 30.06 that the legislature's intent was to allow CHL holders to carry on such property. The law doesn't provide an exception for private parties leasing land from a government entity. The property remains owned by the government entity, thus the statute still applies. Allowing CHL holders into the event is part of the price of getting the favorable lease from the government entity. If they wish to exclude CHL holders they can lease privately owned property, or buy their own property.
At the point where the CHL refuses to allow his information to be collected, they should have no choice but to let them through, as clearly their stated reasons for the policy are made moot by virtue of the fact that they "shred the information at the end of the day."
It is reasonable to take differing interpretations of the law where it is not explicitly spelled out. And you certainly have good arguments for your interpretation.
I agree that the intent of the law was to not allow CHL's to be barred. But, as a general rule, the intent of the law is only looked at by a court when the written law is unclear. The second general rule for our law is that anything not forbidden is permitted. The law forbids denying a person entry on the basis of their being armed if it is government property and the person has a CHL. We agree on this. Where I think we disagree is on the way around the law. There is nothing forbidding the requirement for the entry to be logged, and many places log all entries. You are required to sign in at almost every state office in Austin, as one example, unless it is a customer service window. There is nothing forbidding the denial of entry for a person who refuses to log in.
Another example of how the exact wording of the law allows weird loopholes is in the San Antonio news this week. They have a very strong tree preservation ordinance. It has exemptions for agricultural use of the land and for homeowners. What made the news was the homeowners loophole does not have a limit on the size of the land included, even though the intent was a house plot in a neighborhood. So, if there is a person living in a house on 400 acres, they can bulldoze down all the trees, and then sell the land to the developer (this is what just happened). Another developer found the agricultural loophole and leased a plot out to a rancher for six months for grazing cattle. The rancher bulldozed down hundreds of acres of trees. At the end of the lease, the developer had cleared land and did not have to worry about the ordinance. Both cases, while clearly not the intent of the law, were legal.
I see the logging and denial of entry for refusal to allow logging as the same type of loophole. I could very well be wrong and I certainly agree it was not the intent of the law. But this is why I am suggesting we modify the law to make sure this information is considered confidential and the logging cannot be allowed in the future.
jamullinstx wrote:
At the point where the CHL refuses to allow his information to be collected, they should have no choice but to let them through, as clearly their stated reasons for the policy are made moot by virtue of the fact that they "shred the information at the end of the day."
I wondered about this. Why bother if they're just going to shred it anyway? Or are they?
While the police doing the collecting at the gates may be a teensy bit more palatable as opposed to some spare hired to work the wand or be that person's supervisor, doesn't this make it even more illegal? It's more like the city is collecting this information/registering what CHL's enter the fair. I'm just wondering.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
They used to ask for my phone number and such at Radio Shack, presumably for marketing demographics or some such nonsense. I refused every time, and when one lucky young register person asked why, I said its because its NUNYA. NUNYA business. I then said he could have my money and no phone number, or not have my money at all.
Funny, but I thought I had given all the information I would need to give when I applied for the CHL, and the CHL was issued. Isn't that the whole idea of having the CHL, THAT LEOs KNOW that you are legally carrying a firearm? Are maybe I have missed something all these years of having a CHL. Some one either in the City of Dallas Attorneys office, the AG or the proper person in DPS needs to step up and do the right thing and say this can't be done and why. Knowing it will take some backbone I am not going to hold my breath while waiting, but I will keep hope that some one with either NRA or TRSA will take these folks to task.
Sorry to jump in so late, but I had to be out of town yesterday. To say this topic has grown wings and is flying, would be an understatement. So many on point and relevant posts. I'd be quoting and posting the remainder of the evening if I tried to
respond to everything I've been reading. So, I'll try to hit a few items, do a quick update, and let someone else have the floor.
The meeting of attorneys on Thursday, was between Jeanette O'Shay (sp?) DPS CHL attorney, City of Dallas attorney (name unknown), and Robert Smith State Fair attorney. As I understand: It was their decision and conclusion that the State Fair (non profit corp) had the right to deny entrance to CHL holders. They can request any personal information they want, from any CHL holder. They can record or make a list of your personal information. They can't force you to provide the information, but they can deny you entrance into the Fair grounds if you fail to comply. I'm still not sure how a municipal park, can change into a "private entity", that sets it's own policies, that supercede state law, and then reverts back to a municipal park. In reading I find (on their own website bigtex.com / about us more)
that actually the time they control the Fair grounds is 60 days prior, 24 days during and 30 days after the actual State Fair. So, about 1/3 of the year it's not governed by state law (as they see it) regarding municipalities, parks leases etc.
I notice the bigtex.com website has changed their "can I bring" verbage:
...a gun? No, with one exception.
A person holding a valid concealed handgun license is permitted to enter onto State Fair property with his/her concealed handgun. Licenses will be examined at the entrances. License holder's name will be made accessible to law enforcement officials. Handguns will not be permitted inside the Cotton Bowl, a facility defined under Texas Penal Code 46.035 as "the premises where a high school, collegiate or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place." We want the Fair to be a fun and safe experience.
They still aren't being entirely truthful. It should read " the License holders name and personal informatioin will be recorded", or State Fair ground entry will be denied.
As stated by others, verbal notice is sufficient to ban carry. As a common courtesy, I ask them to FULLY post the specifics of their policy. Saying a CHL is required to make their name "accessible " to law enforcement personnel is alot different than saying "we are requiring you to allow us to record, make a listing, or create a register of your personal information before entry to Fair grounds is allowed".
I would never have made the trip to Fair Park had I advanced knowledge of a policy of this nature. Others may freely give up their personal information to attend the State Fair. I don't think it's worth that. My opinion, yours may vary.
I don't like it. I don't agree with their decision. I think their interpretation of the law is in error. I think the intent of the law was to protect CHL holders from this type of abuse. (I won't bother to cite all the Codes, again).
Before I left town Friday, I personally called the Fair Park Police Office. I spoke with Officer Duncan. I asked the following questions regarding the "new", revised policy of DPD officers recording the CHL holders information.
1. Q: Will the individual officer's be responsible for destroying the information, or will there be a central location where all personal
information will be collected and then destroyed? And, who will oversee that operation?
A: "I'm not sure".
2. Q: Exactly what information will be required to be collected to allow a CHL holder entry into the Fair grounds?
A: "Your DL and your CHL".
3. Q: How does collecting CHL information contribute to the safety or security of Fair Park?
A: "because then we have your information".
Q: But how does having a CHL holders name on a list contribute to the safety or security of Fair Park?
A: veryyyyyyyyyyyy long pause....."because then we have your information if there is an incident". (??????????????)
I thanked her and hung up.
What I really, really, really don't understand..... how making a list or registry of the "good guys" makes anything
safer or improves security? I'll kick a dead horse one more time: if you don't want CHL holders to visit the Fair,
then post 30.06 signs. Period. Post it on your website: "The State Fair of Texas" is afraid of CHL holders because, CHL holders:
have submitted to being fingerprinted, have had extensive background checks, have undergone state mandated classes and range time, have not committed any domestic violence, any felonies any etc etc etc. We, State Fair officials, have decided to make a list of all lawfully carrying, law abiding, non felonious persons entering this property because we are afraid the CHL community will make trouble, be unable to retain possession of their weapons (seems prior CHL'ers have lost a bunch of guns in the past) or somehow cause the safety
and security of the State Fair of Texas to deminish in a substantial way.
One more time, thanks to all who have taken the time, made the effort, emailed or contacted any of the parties involved, or who might be able to help this issue be resolved. Dragonfighter, I'm glad you're not with the opposition, good to have you on board. Steve R., as always, you provide excellent insight from more than one view point as well as knowledge from the LEO POV. To those that have PM'd me contact info to different involved parties or given me "heads up". Thanks. You know who you are.
I will be contacting Sen. John Corona this coming week. The board members for the State Fair of Texas are posted on their website.
I believe contacting some of them may be in order. We can wait for legislation................................or.................do
something.
gemini wrote:
The meeting of attorneys on Thursday, was between Jeanette O'Shay (sp?) DPS CHL attorney, City of Dallas attorney (name unknown), and Robert Smith State Fair attorney. As I understand: It was their decision and conclusion that the State Fair (non profit corp) had the right to deny entrance to CHL holders.
This is very interesting (aside from upsetting). As I recall, the state fair used to actually do this, and was forced to change their policy after some protest and pointing out the parts of the law that forbid governments banning CHL carry (with certain exceptions), due to the fact that the fairground is government property. This is the same nonsense that is going on at the American Airlines Center and other privately operated, government owned venues.
srothstein wrote:I agree that the intent of the law was to not allow CHL's to be barred. But, as a general rule, the intent of the law is only looked at by a court when the written law is unclear. The second general rule for our law is that anything not forbidden is permitted. The law forbids denying a person entry on the basis of their being armed if it is government property and the person has a CHL. We agree on this. Where I think we disagree is on the way around the law. There is nothing forbidding the requirement for the entry to be logged, and many places log all entries. You are required to sign in at almost every state office in Austin, as one example, unless it is a customer service window. There is nothing forbidding the denial of entry for a person who refuses to log in.
I can't find any law requiring someone to display their CHL to anyone but a peace officer or magistrate, nor any law prohibiting someone from refusing to display their CHL to the gate attendant. Whereas anything not forbidden is permitted, we're permitted to refuse to display a CHL to a gate attendant.
If he purchased a ticket for entry, on what basis are they denying entry? Because he had a concealed handgun.
This issue has gotten me riled, not because I give a whit about the State Fair of Texas -- I don't. I've never attended, and am not sure I ever will.
I just don't think the law should be circumvented by leasing land from an entity with statutory prohibitions against certain behaviors. IMHO the statute places an encumbrance on the property, and leasing it to a private entity doesn't relieve the encumbrance. The land is leased with all applicable conditions on the lessee, or find another property to lease.
Private entities can discriminate against all manner of minority under many conditions, but the government cannot. Can the Klan then lease a government property and prohibit their least favored minority just by virtue of being a private organization? We wouldn't be having this discussion if such were the case; we'd be reading about a civil rights investigation.
The solution to the present example may be simple -- absolutely provide that the only way to prevent CHL access to premises is via posting 30.06, except for the blanket prohibitions (prisons, etc., although I'd like to see more of these lifted -- sporting events, schools, etc.). If a lessee wants to use wands, then so be it, but they must post 30.06, and if not allowed to post 30.06, then they must grant CHLs access, wands or no wands. The wands then serve to prohibit unlicensed carry, as they should.
Boomerang, you won't find any such law, but you are misinterpreting the law that does exist. The law requires the CHL holder to present to a LEO when asked for identification. It doesn't prohibit anyone else from asking; the CHL is free to ignore such requests from other than LEO. The consequences of such refusal are up to the requester, not the law.
In this case, however, the issue is that a prohibition on the government is circumvented by a private entity through the lease.
boomerang wrote:
I can't find any law requiring someone to display their CHL to anyone but a peace officer or magistrate, nor any law prohibiting someone from refusing to display their CHL to the gate attendant. Whereas anything not forbidden is permitted, we're permitted to refuse to display a CHL to a gate attendant.
If he purchased a ticket for entry, on what basis are they denying entry? Because he had a concealed handgun.
jamullinstx wrote:In this case, however, the issue is that a prohibition on the government is circumvented by a private entity through the lease.
The law says
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.
It clearly says "owned or leased" not "owned and leased" so if it's not prohibited under Section 46.03 or 46.035
it's obvious a 30.06 prohibition doesn't apply if
(
the property is owned by a governmental entity and leased by a private entity or
the property is owned by a private entity and leased by a governmental entity or
the property is owned by one governmental entity and leased by a different governmental entity
)
Of course they changed the wording, they now know they can get away with it, just as they have been getting away with the bogus prohibition of entering the Cotton Bowl because a sporting event is taking place. They even use the present tense, just as in the law, even though there might actually not be an event taking place at the time, and their answer to that is just as ridiculous, "It's the law."
We should make this real simple, law or no law.......
You force me or any CHL holder in Texas to give up personal information in order to enter your Fair and I, my family, none of my friends and their families, none of their friends and families will attempt to attend your Fair, ever again.
Additionally, I, them and them will tell everyone we know about this foolishness even if they aren't friends!
I will get a listing of all Fair Exhibitors and inform them in writing why no one is attending the Fair and those same people that are no longer attending the Fair will no longer be shopping with them as well.
We will also use every avenue available to us to inform the General Public and ALL Public Officials why no one is attending the Fair!
BTW, I am 62 years old and I have not been to the Fair since I was 12 years old! So, if I can stay away for 50 years, I am sure others can as well and just buy more ammo and do something you really enjoy!
Alan - ANYTHING I write is MY OPINION only. Certified Curmudgeon - But, my German Shepherd loves me!
NRA-Life, USN '65-'69 & '73-'79: RM1 1911's RULE!
ELB wrote:<SNIP>
This is very interesting (aside from upsetting). As I recall, the state fair used to actually do this, and was forced to change their policy after some protest and pointing out the parts of the law that forbid governments banning CHL carry (with certain exceptions), due to the fact that the fairground is government property. <SNIP>
Exactly! They know they are skirting the law here. It is obvious that if they could ban concealed carry outright, they would. They are hiding behind this "private entity" nonsense, and the lawyers facilitated it with their decision. They are either a private facility or not. If they were so sure of their position they wouldn't have compromised on the LEOs being the one to take information. If they were truly a "private" entity they would post 30.06, leave the screeners in place and be done with it. This is a form of harassment to discourage CCW, plain and simple.
I am afraid that without legislation or a court decision we are at an em passe. If we can somehow rally all chl holders to not attend and communicate to the fair why the numbers have been impacted, maybe they would re-consider. Come Monday, I will be writing or otherwise communicating with Chief Kunkle to ensure he is aware his ODOs at the fair are being compelled to collect personal information from CHLs and no other class of entrant.
Getting a list of vendors is a good idea as well. Does anyone know how we might go about this?
I'm done with the fair, at least until they change policy and I will be writing everyone I can think of. Carpal tunnel, here I come.
Added in Edit: I will be interested in seeing how the senators and DPS PSB people respond. Monday dawn's a new day.
I Thess 5:21
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL
"There is no situation so bad that you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield, NASA ISS Astronaut
The collection of Concealed Handgun License information upon entering the State Fair of Texas is a troubling issue. Fair Park is owned by the city of Dallas; therefore, by law, they cannot deny CHL holders from entering the park based on their CHL status. In other words, they may not post 30.06 signs. Furthermore, the State Fair of Texas does not qualify as an amusement park, and thus you may not restrict access by CHL holders based on amusement park definition.
So what was happening to CHL holders when they tried to enter the Fair? Their information was recorded by Fair Security. This was very troubling. Why should a security company have the right to have my personal information before entering the Fair? Bottom line is they don’t. So it appears the new policy is to have a police officer record info before entry to State Fair of Texas. This is still a disturbing practice. Under what authority does the DPD collect this information, and more important what do they do with it?
May I suggest a better way to treat your fellow Texan who has taken it upon him/herself to ensure their own safety (and might someday ensure your safety): Upon entering the Fair, allow the CHL holder to present their ID to a Police Officer. Assuming the officer sees nothing wrong with the CHL, they then say, “Have a nice day. Enjoy the Fair.” Sometimes the hardest thing is to accept the simplest solution.
