TexasCHLforum.com

Odinvalknir wrote:Just curious, what would qualify a sign as improperly posted? Other than the whole size thing and being hidden or not conspicuously placed.


What qualifies a sign for posting in this thread? I'm brand new to CC and have been searching the front of buildings before entering so far lol.

bigity wrote:Shouldn't that only apply if court is in session? Which I guess would be most of the day I suppose, though if anything like some other small towns, it's whenever the judge decides he wants to hold court that day...or week.

VoiceofReason wrote:Submitted with no comment. Request your opinion.

2014-08-04_13-00-37_695 - Copy.jpg

2014-08-04 Water district 2.jpg

unicyclist wrote:

Keith B wrote: Open records request to AG is your best bet.

What do you recommend I ask for? I feel like asking for emails between the two, but wouldn't that fall under attorney-client privilege?

unicyclist wrote:

unicyclist wrote:Not a city, but still an improper state office 30.06 posting.

Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority (Just offices, no pumps, factories, anything of that nature)
910 Bay Area Blvd
Houston, TX ‎
[ Image ]

Update
I have finally spoken with Keith Hardcastle (Director of HR). He is a very hard person to get ahold of, or he just didn't like me trying to get the sign removed. He claims he was in contact with the Attorney General for Texas and he was told that he is able to prohibit a CHL from entering the office location.

In all of encounters to get signs removed, this is the only person that claims to of talked to the AG. Every other municipality that I have been working with has removed their signs. Where do I go from here? I called the AG and its attorney-client so no luck there. I think I want to go submit an open records request for any emails concerning the 30.06 sign within GCWDA and see what I can get.

Any ideas?

jbarn wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:Improperly posted 30.06 signs? How about every city or county convention center that SAXET rents?

Those are SAXET's signs, not the city's. If you want to be a test case and can afford it, then go ahead and carry past them.

Keith, doesn't 30.06 ( I don't have it in front of me) make locations owned or leased by a government entity not applicable to 30.06? To my reasoning, if the location is owned by a government entity it matters not who temporarily rents the space. I have kept an eye out for any case law regarding this, but have not found any. Is there something I am missing?

And on a second note regarding guns shows, I recently had a conversation with another instructor and this was the main idea;

Why do I need a CHL to carry a handgun? Because Penal Code (PC) 46.02 makes it unlawful to carry a handgun unless on my premises, premises under my control, motor vehicle or watercraft. Do I need a CHL to carry a handgun on or about my person at a gun show? Clearly not. People carry all sorts of handguns at gun shows. I suspect due to PC 46.15 (b) (3) (lawful sporting event) or the case law regarding gun stores, etc.

Regardless, no CHL is required to carry at a gun show. A person carrying a handgun at a gun show is not carrying under the authority of a CHL. None is required. Therefore, 30.06 does not apply.

My initial reaction to that was it must be wrong. Try that and see what happens. But once I sat back and thought about it, I realized he is right. Isn't he?


I am interested in others thoughts on this, other than the rhetoric of "let me know how that works out for you". I am looking for the actual legalities.

TIA

Tic Tac wrote:Improperly posted 30.06 signs? How about every city or county convention center that SAXET rents?

1wise1 wrote:Well, where do I start. This is on the front door of the Carrollton, TX City Hall.
Gunbuster pistol in red circle: Sign (white letters on clear glass) reads "Carrying of a concealed handgun on these premises is prohibited and violators will be arrested for criminal tresspass. (sic) Texas Penal code section 30.05(a)
City council meets in building, City Manager, financial services and Fire Dept. Administration. No courts.
No 30.06 signs anywhere.

poppo wrote:Not sure if this section is just for government type of buildings, but today while waiting for the Security Services FCU in Castroville to open, I happened to notice they had a 30.06 sign. Now I don't know how long it's been there because even though it has the proper wording, it (a) is the wrong size (the letters are barely 1/2" tall), and (b) it is not posted where I would consider it visible to the public unless you are 1 foot tall. I would have never even seen it had I not just been milling around waiting for them to open. Also, I'm not sure if the "gunbuster" logo would also make it invalid even if it was the proper size. I did not say anything to them as I do not want them to post a proper one.

rickbowers wrote:Can somebody cite me the state statute number reference for the improper posting on 30.06 on City properties. I'm trying to determine if the 30.06 posting on Hilton Americas is improper. I believe that they were allowed to build on public property, and now the restrict CHL access!

JP171 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:If there is a school bake-sale in the parking lot, or the marching band is practicing there, then yes, it's off limits. "Parking" is not a school sponsored activity.

'Actually yes it is, most highschools and many other schools have parking stickers for staff and students, therefore being able to tow the vehicle because of no sticker parking is a school sponsored activity

JP171 wrote:I already know and agree that ISD's are governmental entities, didn't disagree with that at all, there has to date been no case law that removes the 30:06 from being used for a school parking lot, mostly because that schools are catagorically exempted from the governmental clause thats all.

JP171 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

JP171 wrote:its not improper, not illegal and does apply to the parking lot if its posted at the entrance to the lot

Actually it IS improper. A public school cannot post a 30.06 sign and enforce it as they are a government entity as they take tax monies. Not illegal, as there is no law that says they can't post it improperly. Doesn't really even apply to the school as they would not be charged with Criminal Trespass, but with carrying in a prohibited place under 46.03.

I remember that here abouts somewhere we had discussed and the consensus was that they could. as far as usnig "they take tax money" that has absolutly nothing to do with being a governent entity, many not for profit organizations recieve tax mony and are not considered government agencies. if I am in error about the parking area posting then I am corrected, as far as the law is concerned a school may be owned by a subdivision of the state but is exempt from the law stating that a governental building cannot be posted, and by logical thought I would still belive that a parking lot/area could be off limits thru 30:06

JP171 wrote:its not improper, not illegal and does apply to the parking lot if its posted at the entrance to the lot

sjfcontrol wrote:

Keith B wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: And KeithB -- Voting is ideally suited to the "portion of the building" definition, as (at least to my knowledge) there is always a well-defined delineation of the voting area. There are additional laws -- no cell phone use, no electioneering, etc. -- that need to be enforced by the poll personnel in the polling area. And I would think it would be unusual for a person to have to walk through that area to get to some other part of the building. They only want voter traffic through the polling place. But yes, you are right that you'd want to steer clear of that area if you are armed.

In rural areas it is not uncommon to have early voting in the local grocery/general store, city hall which has only one door, etc. They would normally not have segregated entrances so could be, as the Brits say, 'a sticky wicket'.

EDIT TO ADD: And to calarify, the voting area is in the main hall in the courthouse, or right in front area of the store, so you had to pass through it to get into the other areas.

Because voters and shoppers go through the same door, does not mean the door is part of the voting area. Any more than voters and shoppers parking in the same lot would make the lot part of the voting area. Even in rural areas, are not the voting machines/booths/tables in a segregated area? Poll workers have authority within so many feet of where voting actually takes place.

I guess if they really have the voting booths in the same isle with the baked beans, that isle would be off-limits. It would also be off-limits for cellphone use and politicking.