Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

[bones357]

@RottenApple / JP171

Thanks.

[sjfcontrol]

If there is a school bake-sale in the parking lot, or the marching band is practicing there, then yes, it's off limits. "Parking" is not a school sponsored activity.

[JP171]

If there is a school bake-sale in the parking lot, or the marching band is practicing there, then yes, it's off limits. "Parking" is not a school sponsored activity.

'Actually yes it is, most highschools and many other schools have parking stickers for staff and students, therefore being able to tow the vehicle because of no sticker parking is a school sponsored activity

[Keith B]

If there is a school bake-sale in the parking lot, or the marching band is practicing there, then yes, it's off limits. "Parking" is not a school sponsored activity.

'Actually yes it is, most highschools and many other schools have parking stickers for staff and students, therefore being able to tow the vehicle because of no sticker parking is a school sponsored activity

No case law on this, but I think you are now grasping at straws. They are not 'sponsoing' students to park there.

[Kaliche Kid]

Kaufman County (35 miles southeast of Dallas) has its County Courthouse building improperly displaying a 30.06 sign. I recently went into the courthouse building to speak to the county's environmental officer and had to return to my car to secure my weapon. The annex building across the street from the main courthouse building is not posted and I have concealed carried in there several times to renew my vehicle registration and to pay my property taxes.

The Kaufman County Appraisal District is also improperly posted with a 30.06 sign.

The City of Kaufman has a 30.06 sign posted at the Sports Complex north of town, but it is not very prominent and I don't pay much attention to it when I go to my grandchildren's softball games.

[RottenApple]

Kaufman County (35 miles southeast of Dallas) has its County Courthouse building improperly displaying a 30.06 sign. I recently went into the courthouse building to speak to the county's environmental officer and had to return to my car to secure my weapon. The annex building across the street from the main courthouse building is not posted and I have concealed carried in there several times to renew my vehicle registration and to pay my property taxes.

The Kaufman County Appraisal District is also improperly posted with a 30.06 sign.

The City of Kaufman has a 30.06 sign posted at the Sports Complex north of town, but it is not very prominent and I don't pay much attention to it when I go to my grandchildren's softball games.

The 30.06 at the Kaufman County Courthouse building may be improper, but you can't carry there anyway. The same is true of the court annex building. TPC 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.

And TPC 46.03 says:

(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;

There is some debate as to whether an entire building (which contains court offices) is off limits or only a portion thereof due to the ambiguity in TPC 46.035.

(3) “Premises” means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

There is no case law on this (that I've read about), so for now it's anyone's guess. I believe the general consensus is, at this time, the entire building is off limits.

As for the Kaufman County Appraisal District, if there are court offices (a court clerk, perhaps) located in the building, then the above may also apply. Heck, for all I know, the Appraisal District itself may be deemed an "office of the court".

And last but not least, regardless of the 30.06 sign, the Sports Complex is not off limits (if it is actually owned by the city/county) unless there is a professional sporting event going on. I'm fairly certain your grandkids' ballgames would not qualify.

Sadly, there is no mechanism for correcting improperly posted signs as of yet. You can write to the offices, the city council, etc, but they can choose to ignore it. Now if HB 508 passes, that will be a different story.

[C-dub]

And last but not least, regardless of the 30.06 sign, the Sports Complex is not off limits (if it is actually owned by the city/county) unless there is a professional sporting event going on. I'm fairly certain your grandkids' ballgames would not qualify.

Unless that is where your kids' school team plays. My daughter's school does not have their own football or baseball field. They must use city owned fields. During those games I cannot carry. Now, I know there's been some debate on this issue, but that's the way I see it for now.

[RottenApple]

Unless that is where your kids' school team plays. My daughter's school does not have their own football or baseball field. They must use city owned fields. During those games I cannot carry. Now, I know there's been some debate on this issue, but that's the way I see it for now.

Yep. You caught me. I forgot the 'school sponsored event' issue.

Dang it. And here I thought I covered it all.

[blackdog8200]

I recently contacted the City of Houston 311 information division for an explanation and to complain about the 30.06 sign posted at the City of Houston Permit Offices on Washington Avenue.

They have a properly worded 30.06 sign but it is on a city building with no courts etc that I or the 30.06 site seems to be aware of.

I was astounded that I got a reply buteven more so that the reply actually reinforced my complaint. It seems that in the
CITY OF HOUSTON
Executive Order
Subject: Security on City Premises
E.O. No.
1-37 Revised
Effective Date:
09/20/2010
Approved: Date Approved:
09/20/2010
Page 1

here is the part that seems to negate the City posting a 30.0 worded sign:

10. NOTICES
10.1 Copies of this directive shall be maintained for inspection in the Administration & Regulatory Affairs Department.
10.2 Copies of this directive shall be maintained by security personnel stationed at public entrances or shall otherwise be made available upon request for public inspection upon each City premises to which it pertains.
10.3 One or more signs shall be posted at each of the entrances to City premises. The signs shall be of a size and type reasonably likely to come to the attention of entrants displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public and shall advise in English and Spanish that:
10.3.1 All persons entering a secure area must stop and identify themselves to security personnel, announce their intended destination, and be subject to a search or inspection for weapons prior to entering the secure area. In addition, all persons shall submit all bags or packages in their possession to a search for weapons.
10.3.2 Persons having weapons in their possession may not enter the premises, unless they are licensed by the state to carry a concealed handgun, or are an exempted Peace Officer or Officer of the Court.
10.3.3 If applicable, lawful weapons may be checked at a designated security station.
10.3.4 Copies of applicable regulations may be read at a designated place.
10.3.5 Persons who do not comply with posted notices or security measures are subject to prosecution.
10.3.6 If applicable, the entrance is not a public entrance and that members of the public may use a designated entrance for admission.
11. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
11.1 The provisions of this directive shall be enforced by security personnel. Where appropriate, non-peace officer security personnel shall call upon peace officers for assistance.
11.2 Persons refusing to comply with the policies and procedures set out herein in contravention of posted notices of this directive will be asked to leave the premises. Those refusing to do so by entering upon or remaining within City premises after having been given notice to depart, shall be subject to arrest and prosecution for trespass. See Sections 2-414, 2-415, and 2-419 of the Code of Ordinances and applicable Penal Code Sections.
11.3 Texas Penal Code Sections 30.05(f) and 30.06(e) provide exceptions to prosecution for criminal trespass by persons in possession of a handgun, if they are licensed to carry
Subject: Security on City Premises E. O. No.: 1-37 Revised Page 9 of 9
a concealed handgun, and the sole reason for excluding them is the presence of the handgun. However, under Penal Code Section 46.035(c) it is an offense for the holder of a concealed handgun license to carry a handgun into any meeting of a governmental entity.

I highlighted the parts of the EXO and sent it back to the City to see what response I get.

[Jeff Barriault]

However, under Penal Code Section 46.035(c) it is an offense for the holder of a concealed handgun license to carry a handgun into any meeting of a governmental entity.

The exact wording of PC 46.035(c) is, "A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity."

I think I've highlighted the key word here. I think Houston is trying to say if anyone working in their offices (governmental entity) has any kind of meeting it makes the entire premises off limits. But I think the intent of the law was to make carrying at a meeting off limits.

Let's make sure HB508 passes which will correct the statute to read: (c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, GovernmentCode, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms where a meeting of a governmental entity is held and if the meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code, and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter.

[blackdog8200]

What gets me is the Copy of the executive order banning firearms from city buildigs specifically mentions CHL holders as exceptions and yet they still post the 30.06 sign

I could understand if they posted a Unlicensed Possesion of a Hangun sign... Just not the 30.06 sign.

They responded in less that 24 hours last time....I'll see what they say to my rebuttal.

[blackdog8200]

UPDATE 2/28/2013

WHO SAYS YOU CAN"T BEAT CITY HALL?

I Recieved a call from Mark McAvoy the Executive Director for the Houston Permitting Center,

He informed me that the sign on the door will be removed in the next few days! They are reviewing their policy and Executive order to comply with State Law. He did say they were not going to advertise the change but that I should expect to see it soon.

Molon Labe

[jb03]

My local doctors office and hospital have 30.06 signs posted at their entrances.(basically one building). This is a hospital funded by taxpayers so am unclear on the legality of them posted 30.06 signs. However, their signs are invalid as they are only posted in English.

[C-dub]

UPDATE 2/28/2013

WHO SAYS YOU CAN"T BEAT CITY HALL?

I Recieved a call from Mark McAvoy the Executive Director for the Houston Permitting Center,

He informed me that the sign on the door will be removed in the next few days! They are reviewing their policy and Executive order to comply with State Law. He did say they were not going to advertise the change but that I should expect to see it soon.

Molon Labe

Very nice work Blackdog8200. However, wouldn't it be something that you will NOT see soon?

[C-dub]

My local doctors office and hospital have 30.06 signs posted at their entrances.(basically one building). This is a hospital funded by taxpayers so am unclear on the legality of them posted 30.06 signs. However, their signs are invalid as they are only posted in English.

I have always had the same opinion, but my opinion isn't worth very much. I keep hoping that either the legislature or AG will clear some of these type things up or there will be a court decision. Many of these type of hospitals are county owned and are also teaching hospitals. So, is it a school or is it a hospital that just has an agreement with the school or since the school and the hospital are both owned by the government does it really even matter? We know that schools are off limits now, but if campus carry passes will it become a little more unclear or clearer? We'll just have to wait and see.