Gun Shows

[tex45acp]

I went to the gunshow at the Pasadena Convention Center today and it was posted with the 30.06 sign. There were two cops at the door checking and securing firearms. When I walked up with my Zero Haliburton case full of guns to sell one of the cops asked if I had a CHL. I responded yes and he made a comment like, with this arsenal you should.

Ok.....I admit I am a gun junkie. I love to buy them cheap and shoot them a lot. Then I like to modify them to look like the real guns out there. Well I am done with that. Therapy has been administered.

Walked in with my Zero Haliburton Case loaded with my Sig P220ST, Para Ordnance Carry 12 LDA, Springfield Ultra Compact & Ruger Redhawk 357mag and traded even steven for a new Wilson CQB in all black Armor-Tuff. Wow...what a gun this is. The fit and workmanship is the best I have ever seen. I am like a child on Christmas morning and am chomping at the bit to shoot it. I'll post a range report when I do.

This sale will be the last for a long time. I now own only three 1911 style handguns. The CQB, Kimber Custom TLE II and my little Springfield Champion. I have always wanted a Wilson and by buying the ones I traded at below cost I was able to come out on the winning end of the deal.

I have no problems with the posting of the 30.06 sign at the gunshows.

[JohnWayne]

The gun shows here in Lubbock usually take place at the convention center which is owned by the City of Lubbock. There are always 30.06 signs at the entrances and the usual officers zip tying your guns.

I was under the impression that §30.06(e) meant that there could not be 30.06 signs on government buildings that aren't already prohibited like schools and courts. I am guessing there's no case law or AG opinion on this yet. Anyone have thier own opinion? Is it always considered a government building even when the lessee is a private entity?

Jeff

[KBCraig]

They can still have the signs, because there's nothing in the law to prohibit them from posting one. But if it's a government building, the sign has no meaning to CHLs.

Kevin

[wrt45]

The gun shows here in Lubbock usually take place at the convention center which is owned by the City of Lubbock. There are always 30.06 signs at the entrances and the usual officers zip tying your guns.

I was under the impression that §30.06(e) meant that there could not be 30.06 signs on government buildings that aren't already prohibited like schools and courts. I am guessing there's no case law or AG opinion on this yet. Anyone have thier own opinion? Is it always considered a government building even when the lessee is a private entity?

Jeff

The Civic center has now corrected its signage. They had the 30.06 signs for a long time, then removed them in favor of the 51% signs. When called on that outrageous stunt, they finally posted the correct signs, "Unlicensed posession....etc."

For the gun shows, they are still operating under the idea that the promoter can use a temporary 30.06 sign on a easel by the door.

[JohnWayne]

So, no matter who the lessee is, if the building is owned by a government and not already prohibited otherwise, then 30.06 can not apply?

One reason I am so interested in this issue is I work at a research facility which is owned by a psuedo-government entity (Reese Technology Center), but Texas Tech University leases the buildings in which I work. So, if the actual owner of the building, not the lessee, is all that matters, then it would be lawful for me to carry at work.

Jeff

[wrt45]

So, no matter who the lessee is, if the building is owned by a government and not already prohibited otherwise, then 30.06 can not apply?

That is the underlying question, since the language used says a building, "..owned or leased...." by a government entity. Some argue that the implicit language allows a leasee to post the property during the duration of the lease, while others argue that buildings such as a city-owned civic center cannot enforce a 30.06 sign regardless. I'm not a lawyer, just a poor dumb CHL instructor (emphasis on poor). I tend to think that the leasee should have control, but I'm not aware of any case law clarifying or testing either interpretation. Perhaps Charles can help.......

But your situation may not fall into this either way, since you are dealing with an otherwise prohibited entity (TTU) leasing the property from a quasi-gov. organization. Charles.....?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Perhaps Charles can help.......

Sorry, like everyone else I have an opinion, but since there is no case on point, there is no definitive answer.

It is my opinion that it is the ownership of the real property that controls, not who is temporarily in possession or control, such as pursuant to a long-term or short-term lease. The exception language in 30.06 applies to property “owned or leased by a governmental entity� and there is no language exempting private persons or entities who may lease such property. Had the Legislature intended to allow people leasing government property to post 30.06 signs, it could/should have included such language. If statutory language is not ambiguous, there is nothing to interpret; it is to be applied as written.

The sole argument on the other side is based upon the premise in real estate law that a person who leases real property assumes most, but not all, of the owner's rights and responsibilities. This very broad statement is true, but subject to many restrictions we don’t need to get into for this post. However, I believe this argument fails as a person who leases property cannot assume greater rights than the owner enjoyed. He/she is also subject to all statutory and/or contractual restrictions on use of the property. For example, if I lease space in shopping center next to a school in Houston, I cannot open a bar and sell alcohol and have “dancing� girls. There is an ordnance against SOB’s within 1,000 feet of a school; I can’t sell alcohol without a State license that won’t be granted under the circumstances; and if I am sub-leasing from a tenant, there may be terms in the lease between the shopping center owner and my landlord that prohibits the sale of alcohol or SOB’s on the property. I cannot avoid all of those restrictions simply by arguing “hey, I don’t own it, I just lease it.� I do not see why the limitations of 30.06 would be any different.

Remember, part of the logic behind not letting governmental entities prohibit CHL's from carrying guns on public property, with certain specific exceptions, is that the property belongs to the people and they shouldn't be barred from entry, except under specific circumstances determined necessary by the Legislature. Citizens still own public property that is leased to others.

As to Jeff’s situation, I too believe that ownership by TTU makes the building off-limits, pursuant to 46.03(a)(1). I know the definition of “premises� includes “building or portions of a building� but I think this would be a difficult sell in a setting where a university owns and uses a building for school purposes, but leases some space to private entities.

Regards,
Chas.

[JohnWayne]

As to Jeff’s situation, I too believe that ownership by TTU makes the building off-limits, pursuant to 46.03(a)(1). I know the definition of “premises� includes “building or portions of a building� but I think this would be a difficult sell in a setting where a university owns and uses a building for school purposes, but leases some space to private entities.

Regards,
Chas.

Thanks for your response, Chas. I think you may have my TTU situation backwards though.

The research park is the old Reese Airforce Base which shut down in the 90s. The City of Lubbock annexed and assumed ownership of the base after it closed. The city then created the Reeese Redevelopment Authority (or some similar name) to turn the base in to a research and business park. TTU leases a bunch of buildings there; including the ones in which I work. The city (redevelopment authority) is the actual owner of the property and buildings.

The point I am trying to make, and the question I am trying to answer is this: If the 30.06 signs put up by the promoter of the gun show on the city-owned convention center are not applicable because the convention center is owned by the city, then, on the same token, 46.03(a)(1) would not apply to a city-owned building which is leased by a educational institution. The main question is whether it is the actual owner of the property or the lessee which is applicable in the terms of 30.06 and 46.03(a)(1)? You can't have the law work "both ways".

I got a feeling only an AG opinion or test case and the subseqent case law is the only thing which can answer this question. I do want to hear anyone's opinion on it though.

Jeff

[Charles L. Cotton]

Jeff:
You're right; I had the ownership facts backwards. Sorry about that.

As to the school issue, we need to be sure to distinguish the school prohibition under 46.035(a)(1) from a governmental entities' inability to enforce trespass laws pursuant to a 30.06 sign. For the reasons I stated earlier, I don't think a private gun show promoter can enforce a 30.06 sign posted on property owned by a governmental entity. (This specific topic was also discussed in another thread.)

Schools are expressly off-limits per 46.03(a)(1) and that statute does not have the limiting language dealing with ownership or leasing of the “premises� as found in 30.06. If a building houses a school, then I don’t think it matters whether the school owns the property or not. 46.03(a)(1) will still prohibit the carrying of firearms. I agree that the school wouldn’t be able to enforce any 30.06 signs it posted, but it wouldn’t need to rely upon the trespass statute to prosecute anyone carrying a gun.

If I now understand your situation correctly, the property is city-owned and TTU leases part of it, including the buildings you use. Now the definition of “premises� may become more important. If the students use the same hallways, restrooms, etc. as the non-school tenants and their employees, customer, etc. then I believe the entire building would be subject to 46.03(a)(1). If the student-used portion of the building is distinct and separate from your portion, then the “portion of a building� part of the “premises� definition may be applicable, making it legal for you to carry. It’s a tough call. I personally would not risk it, but that’s just my opinion.

As a side note, the definition of “premises� is mine; part of the language I contributed to SB60. I testified in both House and Senate Committees that it was necessary and I was present when it was being discussed outside the hearing by the Bill’s House and Senate authors. (There was a companion bill in the House.) The clear intent was to prohibit “carry� only in the portion of a building where the activity that prompted the prohibition was actually occurring. However, due to intentional misreading of the phrase “or portion of a building� I now believe it is necessary to clarify the definition further. I suspect this will be addressed in 2007. I’m not throwing this in to toot my own horn, but to show the basis for my strong belief that the phrase “portion of a building� doesn’t mean “if it happens anywhere in the building� as anti’s are promoting. (TML had the gall to publish this in a newsletter to its members!) Yeah, I know I'm a bit over-protective, but I know what Sen. Patterson and Rep. Bill Carter wanted and what I wrote. [Rant mode off.]

Regards,
Chas.

[Jim101]

I understand that there is a Gun Show in Frisco on 7/30, is that true?? That should be an interesting show, I beleive it would be the first one there, which could attract quite a few vendors and sellers.....But, there is always a but, I don't know where it is? Has anyone heard?

Thanks,
Jim