The issue then is does the municipal entity pay a fine if the leased property places a 30.06/30.07 sign and you make a complaint to the municipal government and formal complaint to the AG. Apparently not according to the AG opinion. The sign may not be enforceable but the government agency leasing the property does not get fined and therefore does not need to have the signs removed. Correct me if I am wrong.G.A. Heath wrote:Nope, it doesn't quite work that way. Lets say I buy a piece of property with a dead restriction prohibiting mobile homes. I lease it to your fifth cousin's brother-in-law from Oklahoma. Now he can not put a mobile home on it because the dead restriction is still there. Instead of mobile home lets say the dead restriction is no signs larger than 8.5x11 can be posted on the property. The same thing still applies, I can not grant him a right I do not have by leasing the property to him. While the 30.06/30.07 sign is not enforceable on property owned or leased by Texas or one of it's political sub-divisions, just because a group leases that property doesn't mean they gain rights that the owner lacks. The issue is that the AG has released an opinion that the private entity faces no penalty for posting property they lease but because they control the property via the lease the local government that owns it can not force them to take it down. The federal prohibition works because it affects property owned or leased by the federal government by law and in theory federal law supersedes state or local laws when they conflict so there is no precedent there just a different set of laws coming into play.rotor wrote:I am just saying that precedent is already there. If the land is leased to the feds then fed law applies. Perhaps the argument is that municipal land leased to private business can also allow private business to set their own 30.06/30.07 requirements. Apparently that is what the AG decision is saying, yes?G.A. Heath wrote:Rotor, the premises leased by the FEDERAL government is not covered here, that would need to be addressed in the federal legislature. As for my comments I am discussing state law and property owned by the state and its political sub divisions.
Treadlightly, the Rodeo itself would be off limits not the entire fairgrounds.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “HOT Fair in Waco not Allowing Carry of any Kind”
- Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:42 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: HOT Fair in Waco not Allowing Carry of any Kind
- Replies: 11
- Views: 1801
Re: HOT Fair in Waco not Allowing Carry of any Kind
- Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:49 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: HOT Fair in Waco not Allowing Carry of any Kind
- Replies: 11
- Views: 1801
Re: HOT Fair in Waco not Allowing Carry of any Kind
I am just saying that precedent is already there. If the land is leased to the feds then fed law applies. Perhaps the argument is that municipal land leased to private business can also allow private business to set their own 30.06/30.07 requirements. Apparently that is what the AG decision is saying, yes?G.A. Heath wrote:Rotor, the premises leased by the FEDERAL government is not covered here, that would need to be addressed in the federal legislature. As for my comments I am discussing state law and property owned by the state and its political sub divisions.
Treadlightly, the Rodeo itself would be off limits not the entire fairgrounds.
- Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:39 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: HOT Fair in Waco not Allowing Carry of any Kind
- Replies: 11
- Views: 1801
Re: HOT Fair in Waco not Allowing Carry of any Kind
I see a problem with all of this. Doesn't the Post office and other Federal agencies lease property from private groups and then the buildings come under the authority of the Federal laws (no guns)? What if they use the same logic that leasing from a State/City government entity allows private groups to place 30.06/30.07 (as they seem to be doing now)? Can we ever get legislation that will keep Texan's property ( we do own it ) from being restricted by private business that leases that property? This might be a loophole that we can't get by. Will the legislators make it a requirement that every lease of State/City owned property (we the people own it) have a clause banning gun carry restrictions? Sounds like a tough sell and I thought we had it until the recent AG ruling.G.A. Heath wrote:It has not muddled the waters, it's just that some less than honest folks are claiming that it allows them to do things that it doesn't.
For 2017 we need to add a provision to the wrongful exclusion (Fines for Signs) law that will allow the AG to go after private entities who post and/or government bodies who lease to private entities that post. Additionally I think the law should require that all lease contracts for property owned by a government body have a provision stating that such postings are illegal and will be prosecuted by the AG and/or county/district attorney. I also think a provision should also be added (I don't think it has a snowballs chance in a Texas Summer's chance of passing) that would create civil liability for anyone enforcing an improper posting on government property (leased by a private entity or not).