It doesn't matter: the land is owned by the gov. which means they cannot post. Example: the long center in austin. The land is public land (owned by the city) but the building is owned by a company (not the city). They have a perpetual lease on the land and can build whatever they want but due to the way the laws are worded, they cannot post the sign (they now have a 51% sign due to the bar there for some reason... Still not sure that they make more than 51% on alcohol sales...)sugar land dave wrote:Can they get around that by allowing a lessor to post? What about allowing a civilian contractor to post?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Not really. There has never been a prohibition on governmental entities posting 30.06 signs; they were simply unenforceable. Now it is unlawful to do so.thechl wrote:Didn't we just celebrate the passing of SB273? Isn't that a bill that merely reiterates current Texas law, but then adds a penalty because municipalities are ignoring that law with impunity?
Chas.
I just want something to pass so that I don't have to be as worried about printing and summer comfort... While I would love to have the amendment to help keep cops from stopping me, I personally won't cause to much of a fuss if they do.