TexasCHLforum.com

GC §411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. wrote:(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

[quote=""PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN."]a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.[/quote]
With the parts I highlighted in red above in mind, if a LEO tries to enforce the organizer's ban, hasn't he effectively provided oral notice? It seems to me that whatever entity he works for (city, county, etc.) would have violated the law.

mayor wrote:that web link is meaningless.

let me post one just as meaningful: http://www.lmsvehiclesolutions.co.uk/wp ... 03/huh.jpg

It appears it is the event organizer trying to bar carry, not the city:

Pride Houston is a registered 501(c)3 organization incorporated in the state of Texas, and is 100 percent volunteer-run. Its annual June Celebration takes more than 10,000 volunteer hours to produce, along side its other initiatives, which require more volunteers than ever.

These cities need to start giving organizers a list of what is not allowed on public property. Of course, they won't unless the Legislature passes a law that will hold the city's feet to the fire whenever one of these organizations tries to inflict their views on property we all own.