He mentioned in another thread that it was simply because SB273 passed before HB910, so there was no 30.07 sign to prohibit. You can still open carry on government property and are exempt from prosecution under 30.07. But nothing to stop them from posting the unenforceable sign.The Annoyed Man wrote:You're right.... the text of SB 273 does not mention 30.07........30.06 yes, but not 30.07. My guess is that this is not accidental, but we'll see. If it was an oversight, it will be hotly debated in the next session.OldAg wrote:Doesn't SB273 just prohibit public entities from posting 30.06 signs? That would mean that they could post 30.07 signs.
Maybe Charles L. Cotton could shed some light on this?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “City says businesses leasing public land can opt out of open carry”
- Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:59 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: City says businesses leasing public land can opt out of open carry
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1630
Re: City says businesses leasing public land can opt out of open carry
- Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:45 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: City says businesses leasing public land can opt out of open carry
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1630
Re: City says businesses leasing public land can opt out of open carry
The DA didn't make a statement, it was the City Attorney.ELB wrote:DAs are supposed to know and follow the law, but there are many counterexamples. When you have near-total immunity, you don't have to worry about being right quite as much as others.rc-mike wrote:http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/12 ... /77022724/
I think the city is wrong... but this came from the DA? How is that possible?
-Mike-