It would seem to me that the AG is going to apply 411.209 to 30.07 signs or similar language as well...Glockster wrote:Yes, thought that was a nice bit as welltimtheteacher wrote:also in the opinion....
"Thus,
any oral notice given by a governmental entity regarding the prohibition of handguns, if given
where handguns are lawful, can serve as an improper exclusion in violation in section 411.209.
And the sign about which you inquire that does not use the statutory language but states that the
Center is a "Weapons Free Zone," if placed in an area where handguns are allowed, would
similarly invoke the enforcement mechanism of section 411.209. "
"Conversely,
a licensee who refuses to relinquish any concealed handgun or refuses to exit the building after
being· given notice by a governmental entity does not commit an offense if the building is not one
from which sections 46.03 and 46.035 prohibit concealed handguns. See id § 30.06(e)."
Search found 1 match
Return to “AG Opinion on CHL in multiple use government buldings”
- Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:58 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: AG Opinion on CHL in multiple use government buldings
- Replies: 20
- Views: 2500