TexasCHLforum.com

longtooth wrote:I didn't get it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Except as expressly set out in TPC §30.06, a 30.06 sign cannot be used to exclude an armed CHL from government-owned property or property leased by the government. Renting or leasing government property to a non-governmental entity or a person does not change this. This issue came up during discussion on SB501 and the language of the statute is very clear. It is the ownership (or leasing) of the property by a governmental entity that is controlling.

The argument that a lessee can post a valid 30.06 sign has it’s origin in Texas property law. A lessee/renter generally assumes all of the rights and responsibilities of the owner of the property, subject to any limitations in the lease/rental contract. The lessee/renter also takes the property subject to any statutory limitations and/or responsibilities. For example, if I rent a building with intent to open a bar, I cannot do so if the building is in a “dry� county. It doesn’t matter what is contained in my lease contract with the building owner, I cannot do that which the owner couldn’t do. Here is another example. If I sublet my office space to another attorney and move to another building, he can do anything I could have done, i.e. he’s subject to the terms and limitations in my lease with the building owner. Even if my sub-lease with him expressly states that he can have a fireplace in his office, he is still bound by the limitations in my contract with the building owner that forbids any open flames in the office.

No property owner can transfer greater rights than they possess, whether the property owner is a private entity or person, or a governmental entity. This argument is routinely used to thwart the clear language of TPC §30.06, but it’s invalid. However, here is the obligatory attorney’s warning - there is no case law on point, so we’re still waiting on the test case.

Chas.