TexasCHLforum.com

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:

Kalrog wrote:
There is some difference of opinion on that one around these parts. The majority feel that you read the law the way it is written and that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is owned by a governmental agency. And that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is leased by a governmental agency. Either one is enough to render a 30.06 sign unenforceable.

Furthermore, speaking on principle...
If a corporation is going to rake in huge profits using tax money to build the facility in which they operate, they deserve no special rights. That stadium is public property. If they want to restrict carry under the law, they ought to pony up their own dough instead of riding on the backs of taxpayers while whipping them at the same time. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. At least that's how I see it.

Except for the fact that, aside from the land, The Hobby Center was built with private donations raised by Houston Music Hall Foundations.

While this is a much less extreme case, the fact remains that the land is city-owned and therefore funded by the taxpayers. The Music Hall Foundation does not have to pay taxes on the land or deal with any of the responsibilities required when owning land. Because of the advantages afforded to them by this arrangement, they have to deal with portions of the law applicable to those who operate on government-owned land.

Kalrog wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:But does "owned by a governmental entity" supercede "leased by a private corporation?"

There is some difference of opinion on that one around these parts. The majority feel that you read the law the way it is written and that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is owned by a governmental agency. And that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is leased by a governmental agency. Either one is enough to render a 30.06 sign unenforceable.

Furthermore, speaking on principle...
If a corporation is going to rake in huge profits using tax money to build the facility in which they operate, they deserve no special rights. That stadium is public property. If they want to restrict carry under the law, they ought to pony up their own dough instead of riding on the backs of taxpayers while whipping them at the same time. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. At least that's how I see it.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

seamusTX wrote:In a condominium, each unit owner owns an undivided interest in the underlying land and common areas.

- Jim

Not to be a stickler, but what about the 2nd or 3rd floor condo?

Right. Or in the case of the newer Austin developments, a 20th floor condo in a mixed-use high-rise.

And as Chas just posted, the law only states that if the property is owned or leased by the governmental entity (and not off limits under other secions of the law, such as a courthouse), 30.06 is not applicable.

So, as the law is so clear, what would it take to get the problems people are having with the various stadiums that are owned by city governments? My guess would be that it would take an answer from the AG or a lawsuit to get these places to stop illegally enforcing carry restrictions.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:I got clarification on this. HMHF owns the facility. The land is owned by City of Houston and HMHF holds a 30 year lease.

Permanent improvements to real property belong to the landowner. You cannot own a building that sits on leased land. As you said however, you can own movable personal property such as a construction trailer, but the Hobby Center is one big building!

Chas.

So you're saying you cannot 'own' a building or portion of a building on property that you do not also own?

That's a good point. Condos are set up that way.