TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:It seems a shame to me that after all these years, municipal 30.06 signs still are a problem that has not been fixed. Why should lawfull chl holders be denied their right by any municipal entity under color of law? Why is open carry promoted at the legislature more energetically than the need to prevent disallowed 30.06 municipal postings? I have no problem with property owners executing their legal right per 30.06, but for any city to flaunt themselves as being above state pre-emption is a bad precident in my opinion.

Well that isn't exactly what we are talking about here IMHO. Say I have a store and don't want people to carry for what ever reason. I can post a 30.06 sign and we are done. If I lease the store front I can still post my store in every can except if the landlord just happens to be a govt agency. By doing business with a govt owned facility the people putting on the show loose the ability to control their business with regard to firearms. They hold an event in a private hall or hotel/convention center they have that ability. That there is some belief that such a business might still be able to regulate their event the same as they can on private property is hardly surprising. They have every other right but the ability to post 30.06 so I can see questioning what the law really is. And if it's really correct to remove the ability of someone to post 30.06 because they chose a govt owned venue.