TexasCHLforum.com

sugar land dave wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:I seem to remember reading an Attorney General opinion from several years ago. It stated his thoughts that although a municipality could not regulate chl carry in city parks, counties could perhaps regulate chl carry in the county parks. Sorry, I do not have a link handy.

Since no one noted my previous post, I went and looked it up for everyone:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... .HTM#rapid

Prohibition of hanguns on rapid transportation and in city parks


August 30, 1995
Honorable Ron Wilson
Chair

Licensing and Administrative Procedures
House of Representatives
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Opinion No. DM-364

...In answer to your third and last question, we believe that a municipality does not have the power to prohibit licensees from carrying handguns in city parks but that a county does have such power over county parks.

...Neither the concealed handgun law nor any other statute has restricted a county's police power over its parks under section 331.007 of the Local Government Code. We believe that section 331.007 permits the "governing body of a [county] park" to adopt a rule providing for the exclusion or ejection of persons carrying handguns from a county park if such a rule is reasonably necessary and appropriate for the accomplishment of a legitimate object falling within the county's police power under section 331.007. See Falfurrias Creamery Co. v. City of Laredo, 276 S.W.2d at 353.

...A county has the power to adopt a rule providing for the exclusion or ejection of persons carrying handguns from county parks if such a rule is reasonably necessary and appropriate for the accomplishment of a legitimate object falling within the county's police power under section 331.007 of the Local Government Code. The reasonableness and necessity of a measure taken under the county's police power is, in the first instance, a matter within the county's discretion. The courts would not disturb a county's regulation of handguns in county parks unless the regulation were clearly shown to be unreasonable and arbitrary.

Yours very truly,

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

JORGE VEGA
First Assistant Attorney General

SARAH J. SHIRLEY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by James B. Pinson
Assistant Attorney General


This is still on the DPS CHL website and has apparently not been superseded .

G.A. Heath wrote:

BrianSW99 wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

BrianSW99 wrote:If it's a city owned park, they can't enforce a 30.06 sign, but if they're searching bags or wanding people as they go in you can bet you'll be denied admission if they find it.

Brian

"They can't do that" but they will anyway if they want to. Saw it at a street festival one time. No way to punish those who do it either.

That's been debated on here before and my opinion is that if it's an event run by a private organization for which admission is charged to get in, they do have the right to refuse entry to CHLs even if it's on public property.

The reason is this: The exemption in PC 30.06 that says a 30.06 sign is unenforceable on government property only means that it is not a crime to carry past a 30.06 sign in those places. It doesn't say that a private organization holding a private event can't refuse entry to CHLs. Businesses can refuse service to customers for any number of reasons. It just means that if you've slipped past security without them finding your concealed gun, you haven't committed any crime.

Brian

I have to disagree with you, the law says that TPC 30.06 does not apply on property owned or leased by the state government or its political subdivisions, with a few exceptions like government meetings. It does not say that TPC 30.06 does not apply on property owned or leased by the state government or its political subdivisions, unless it is leased out to a private entity. I would go further and say that if I am prohibited by law from doing action X on my property I can not lease/rent you the property and give you the right to perform that prohibited action. If a private entity could effectively post 30.06 on government property when holding a private event you would see cities like Austin "Leasing" the entire property around their buildings to entities like the Brady campaign so that it could be posted and there would be an effective gun free zone surrounding the building, therefore making the building a de-facto gun free zone.

Bullwhip wrote:

BrianSW99 wrote:If it's a city owned park, they can't enforce a 30.06 sign, but if they're searching bags or wanding people as they go in you can bet you'll be denied admission if they find it.

Brian

"They can't do that" but they will anyway if they want to. Saw it at a street festival one time. No way to punish those who do it either.