TexasCHLforum.com

The law is clear that government owned hospitals can be legally posted 30.06. One of the less well known facts is that you can be charged with two separate crimes if you disobey the 30.06 sign.

When you read the section of 30.06 that makes government property unenforceable, it has an exception for places that are listed in 46.03 or 46.035. Hospitals are listed in 46.035, so they can be posted. It is the only way to make any sense out of the requirement that the hospital be posted to be banned under 46.035.

And that means that if you ignore the sign, you are violating both 30.06 and 46.035 at the same time, and can be charged with both violations.

sjfcontrol wrote:I would like to think that since the definition of 'premises' is "...building or portion of a building...", that they would be restricted to making only the smallest reasonable portion of that building off limits. I suppose it would take a court case to set precedent.

I agree that this will take some court precedent, if it does not exist from some other field already. The problem with the phrase, as I see it, is that it implies a choice and does not specify who gets to make the choice. If I am in charge of a building that has several offices and one court in it, do I get to decide if it is the whole building or just the portion of the building?

I am sure that the thought process was to make it just the portion necessary, but where I am most familiar with this type of thing it only applies to the portion if the other portions are under someone else's control. That would be a liquor license for a store in a strip center or mall, where the whole building would not be considered the licensed premise because other tenants get to make their own rules. But a bar in a bowling alley could make the whole building the licensed premise if the bar is part of the bowling alley business (not a contractor).

I don't see how it meets any of the definitions of critical infrastructure, which are pretty specific. But even if it did, that really only applies in conjunction with you already having committed a crime under 30.05, which does not apply if you are a CHL and the denial is for your carrying your firearm. The only possible one to confuse things might be the telecommunications clause, but that is actually the central telephone system office. They still call them central switching offices from back when the old dial-up systems used mechanical switches and operators.

HerbM,

I think the building and common areas could be posted, but the data center itself is a complicated question. The law making government buildings not valid only would apply to the part leased by the state. The rest of the building would be private property and up to the owner.

The data center itself would depend on who is actually leasing the property. If the state is leasing the property, the sign is invalid and could be ignored. If a company is leasing the property and running the data center for the state, it is still private property and could be posted. The law says property owned or leased by the state. It does not mention leased for the benefit of the state.

Now, I have to admit that it gets into a very gray area on the data center when it is operated solely for the state. It could be argued that it was effectively being sublet to the state. That would have to be decided by a court though.

As an aside, there is an interesting legal question on the common area. The wording of the law implies it could be posted since it is not being leased by the state. But a lawyer could argue that it is effectively making the state leased property posted by stopping you from getting there with your weapon. I could see that being ruled invalid by the right court also.

puma guy wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:I have a question for some of the lawyers on here.

When the government officials are aware these signs are not enforceable, and they post them anyway, why are they not guilty of Texas Penal Code - Section 39.03. Official Oppression?

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

It would seem that a-2 would apply. They are certainly intentionally denying and impeding the exercise (and enjoyment) of one of our rights.

If any attorneys care to respond to the question above, also please consider that there are uniformed PPD officers enforcing 30.06 at the entrance of the Pasadena Convention Center. The last one I encountered there was quite arrogant and completely ignorant of the actual law. Didn't want to antagonize the situation by inquiring whether the city or venue was paying for the presence of the police.

Note the boldface part I marked. This is why it is not official oppression. Note the law (where I marked it in italics) requires the officer to know his conduct is unlawful. Your post is evidence that he did not commit the crime of official oppression.

As to the question as posed by Scootersissy, the answer is awfully close to the same thing. You have to prove both the knowledge of the unlawful conduct and the "intentional" part of the law. They may be both, but proving it in court is the hard part.

speedsix wrote:...but they have a gov't exemption on land and property X1 whatever that means...???

This is what raises questions in my mind. There are some interesting areas of property tax law and exemptions. The governmental exemption coul dbe wrong because a charity is also totally exempt. It could be the property is owned by the government still and the rodeo company leases it. Then the leasehold value is taxable normally because the government only gets the exemption when it is used for a governmental purpose. But they could keep the governmental exemption showing if the company is a charity like this.

And it is possible that the rodeo company is owned by the city or some other governmental agency like the school district. This would still be a governmental agency for the tax exemption and the 30.06. One common example of this is a water or electric company. A lot of them are owned by the local municipality but are set up as corporations. This can be checked by searching the secretary of state records. They charge for a search, so I did not do it right now.

So, this one is a very gray area and the tax record is not 100% conclusive. I recommend erring on the side of caution unless there is more evidence. Don't carry there until you are sure it is truly government property.

El_Capitan wrote:Hmmm.... maybe I am missing something. Who would be the first agency you would go with if you had questions about concealed carry laws and CHL?

I would have to go to the local prosecutor instead of a police agency. The problem with going to DPS is that the average patrolman does not have any extra training or knowledge over any other officer and the agency has a reported history of telling people things that contradict plainly written law. To be fair, if you wanted an unbiased opinion, I would also stay away from TSRA, though the bias is the one I agree with.

Asking the local prosecutor what his working interpretation is will teach you how things will be applied in that court, which is where the real life interpretation matters.

El_Capitan wrote:Yes I did. Carry past one and you may end up in jail. I think that all local police should HAVE to contact Texas DPS by law when dealing with the 30.06 code and only the Texas DPS should be allowed to enforce the 30.06 Code. As various local police deparments and municpalities have shown thier lack of knowledge or thier complete disreguard of Texas law concerning the 30.06 Code.

You obviously have a much higher opinion of DPS than I do. Contrary to popular belief, they are not the best cops in Texas, just one of the state police agencies with a really good reputation. With their primary duties, if I had a question about traffic laws or accident investigation, DPS is the first agency I would go with. But if the question involved how to handle a domestic disturbance or similar call, I would ask any municipal officer first. It the question was about hunting or fishing, a game warden would be the best choice, just as a TABC agent if it dealt with drinking laws. Even law enforcement comes with specialties sometimes.

When it comes to general criminal law, it depends as much on the trooper as it does any other officer. They have some good ones and some bad ones, just as any other department.

Wow, an area that deals with where I work now. Since leaving TABC, I am now employed with the Comptroller's Office Property Tax Assistance Division. I truly did not expect to see any questions about property tax on this board. I spent quite a bit of time learning the basics of the Tax Code in November and December and at times it makes the Penal Code look easy.

The CAD is a government body, funded 100% by taxes. Some of the counties call them County Appraisal Districts and some changed the name to central appraisal district. There are 253 of them in Texas now, with Potter and Randle counties combining to form one CAD. The various taxing entities in the county appoint the Board of Directors to the CAD. The BOD appoints the Chief Appraiser. The Chief appraiser hires anyone else need for the office. The BOD sets the budget for the CAD and splits the funding among the taxing entities based on the percentage of the property value in the district. And we all know that anything funded by taxes is a governmental agency, even if Jim had not posted the law saying so. And I was told that the main reason the CADs changed their name to Central is because they are not part of the County government and are not "county" offices, but legally a special district like a water or emergency services district.

The CAD's started out by just appraising for the county, as Jim said. This led to one property having several different appraised values, which just isn't fair. So the state mandated that only the CAD can appraise (did this in the 70's if I understand correctly) but did not limit the CAD to the county line at the time. So, if a city or school district crossed county lines, they could choose either of the CADs to appraise their property. Of course, the CADs were supposed to work together, but there were a few cases where a school district would pick one CAD while a city would pick another CAD and the property still had multiple appraisals. There were a couple other restrictions imposed, and then three years ago, the CAD was restricted to its county lines. Now each property gets appraised once by one CAD and cities or school districts that cross line shave to work with multiple CADs. This is fairer to the taxpayer, or seems that way to me.

The CAD appraises all of the property in the county at least once every three years and sets the value of it. The taxing entities may collect the taxes on their own, or contract with an agency to do so. The normal agency to collect taxes is the county tax assessor collector, but some counties do contract with the CADs to also collect the taxes.

And one of the main reasons I jumped in is to point out that the CAD may be considered a court house at times, and definitely has governmental meetings there. The Board of Directors is a governing body and the laws restricting carry during their meetings would apply. Note that this is only true when they are actually meeting. But, and this is important, each CAD has an independent body that hears tax protests. The Appraisal Review Board (ARB) is mandated by law to be set up to hear the protests locally. Since the ARB is a group of citizens, I am not sure if it would count as a court or not but I could see some CAD who wanted to bar guns arguing it that way. And if a judge agrees it is a court, remember that courts and offices used by them are off limits whether the court is in session or not (IIRC). You might be able to argue that the ARB is not a court, but it would still be a governmental meeting if they are in session, and you would be back to that law for guidance.

As an aside, many of the CADs contract out part of the appraisal process for complex properties. It is at least theoretically possible that the CAD could contract out the whole operation, but I have not heard of that being done yet. Even if it did, the CAD itself, along with the Chief Appraiser, would still be part of the government and not part of the private business.

One minor technical correction to C-dub's post. the actual wording of the law is courtroom or any offices used by the court. This includes the court clerk's office and places like the judge's chambers or jury chambers as well as the courtroom only. It remains to be seen exactly how far the offices part will be stretched by some city or county. I can see some claiming the probation office is used by the court also, as one example.

SlowDave wrote:Do you think this is a city-owned facility and therefore cannot be restricted and I should inform them to remove the signs?

Growdon Pound is owned by the City of San Antonio, as seen from the Bexar County Tax Appraisal District files. Of course, I thought it was when I because it was operated by SAPD officers when I was last there (1998) but I wanted to make sure.

And it cannot be a secure police facility since it is now operated and managed by someone who is not the police.

So, there are no correct signs and it is not enforceable for them to post ANY sign. That will not stop them from posting or telling you they can, or even arresting you and trying to enforce a sign. But it does mean they can not win in court if they prosecute you.

Unless you plan on going back there more often, I would suggest ignoring it and just remembering you can carry on city property except for the courts and the real secure areas of the police stations (of which there are very few).

I am not sure where you heard that 30.06 does not apply or if it is how it does not apply.

The first part of the law that would show what you are asking is in chapter 46.02. Note that the law does not apply to your own premises. So, an apartment complex cannot prosecute you for carrying in your apartment. BUT, and I think this is a very important point, the law says your own premises or premises under your control. The common areas of the complex, such as the parking lot and hallways, are not your premises or under your control. If you are caught walking in the complex, you could be prosecuted under 30.06.

The easy way out for your own complex is that the law allows you to carry to your car (and by implication back from it). So you can carry in your apartment and in your car and to it. You cannot carry while walking around the complex (say to check the mail).

I would think the signs are directed at visitors more than at residents, but the complex is still wrong for posting them. If I want someone to not carry when he visits me, I will post it in my apartment. And the complex signs still do not apply to visitors in my apartment since it is under my control.

I think a good lawyer could beat any 30.06 charges on anyone caught in a properly posted complex unless the person was actually cught just walking around the common areas.

Tactical_Texan_CHL wrote:Isn't TABC pretty picky about correct signs being put up? I wonder if they could look into the 51% on hospitals thing?

TABC is very picky about the correct signs being posted, BUT they only have authority over places with a license for alcoholic beverages. Since the hospital is not licensed (and probably does not sell any alcoholic drinks), TABC cannot do much about them.

Incidentally, the sign requirement in GC 411.204 is a remnant from before the change to where you can carry. It was actually a good idea when it was passed since the law banned you from hospitals and this requirement let you know if it was a hospital that counted. Then they changed the law and the hospital needs to be properly posted 30.06 but they left this section in (probably by accident).

I have posted before that I am not sure if a person can be charged with this sign due to the contradictory requirements for the law. The hospital has to post this, then would also have to post 30.06, which makes no sense. But you are only required to obey a 30.06 posting which makes this law ineffective, which also makes no sense. I think the courts would throw out a case based on this posting (the 51 sign without the 51) but I also think some DA's would try.