Fort Worth Gun Show Posted?

[The Annoyed Man]

My son and I are headed over to the Fort Worth Gun Show in a little while at the Amon G. Carter Exhibit Hall of the Will Rogers Memorial Center. I just wanted to know if they post a 30.06 there or not, or if there are any other reasons why I cannot legally carry into the show. Any quick response would be appreciated as I'm out the door pretty soon.

Thanks.

[propellerhead]

They always are.

[The Annoyed Man]

Well I just got home from the show. There is no 30.06 sign posted... ...HOWEVER, there is a large sign posted that says absolutely no loaded weapons allowed inside - no exceptions. Seated next to the sign are three Fort Worth police officers, inspecting all weapons being carried in to make sure they are unloaded.

Now, I supposed that since there was no legal signage, technically, I could have walked right in. But, the police being involved as they were, I didn't think it a good idea to challenge things. So, I walked up to one of the officers, and discreetly showed him my card and said, "what am I required to do?" He said to take my weapon back out to the car and secure it, but that I was definitely not allowed inside with it if it was loaded. Later, talking to one of the vendors, I complained a little bit about that, and he told me that even the vendors are not allowed to carry a loaded weapon while they are inside.

I supposed that I could have pointed out that there is no 30.06 sign posted and that I am therefore within my rights to carry inside, but the flip side to that argument would be, "If you're so certain, why did you ask me in the first place?" I've had my plastic for about a month now, and I'm still trying to feel my way around with this thing. I realize that, by asking him, I A) exposed the fact that I CCW, and B) set myself up for being told to take it out to the car. In retrospect, I guess that I was too tentative. But on the other hand, I would rather err on the side of caution than to get rousted by the cops - even if they are wrong.

That being said, I realized that a Texas gun show, at least the Fort Worth gun show, is no more safe than going to any shopping mall. All those guns - literally thousands of them, not counting the onces that attendees were carrying in - and not one loaded chamber in the place that wasn't being carried by a cop.

So, I'm asking, what would all of you have done, and did the fact that a cop told me to secure my weapon in the car actually make it mandatory for me to do so?

[kauboy]

Actually, I just got back and, as stated, no 30.06. But I did not see any "No exceptions" signs either.
What I did see was "No loaded firearms", but underneath that, it said "Exceptions include CHL".
I did a double-take.

Every single time I've been there, a white board with red letters clearly in compliance with 30.06 format (although not enforceable) has been placed right at the front of the line.
But this time, no such sign and a sign stating that I, a CHL carrier, am the exception to the rule!!!

I'm so glad I bought a two day pass. I will be returning tomorrow, and walking a little prouder knowing that their policy, albeit incorrect, has now changed.

I guess my position was clearly stated last time when I wrote "I do not appreciate the 30.06 posting" on the card to enter a drawing.
I wonder how many others did the same?



BTW, Annoyed man, the Amon G. Carter exhibit hall is owned by the city of Fort Worth. Therefore, 30.06 is not legally enforceable anyways.
The thing is, none of us have tempted fate and outright asked by bringing it up to an officer.
I'm curious where you saw a "No Exceptions" sign? I only saw the black sign with yellow, orange, and green letters stating that CHL is an exception. And they were everywhere.

[tarkus]

Well I just got home from the show. There is no 30.06 sign posted... ...HOWEVER, there is a large sign posted that says absolutely no loaded weapons allowed inside - no exceptions.

The cops didn't have loaded guns? That's just crazy.

[The Annoyed Man]

BTW, Annoyed man, the Amon G. Carter exhibit hall is owned by the city of Fort Worth. Therefore, 30.06 is not legally enforceable anyways.
The thing is, none of us have tempted fate and outright asked by bringing it up to an officer.

Yeah, I admit that was dumb. Chalk it up to inexperience.

I'm curious where you saw a "No Exceptions" sign? I only saw the black sign with yellow, orange, and green letters stating that CHL is an exception. And they were everywhere.

I promise you it was there at the time... ...my son and I both read the sign together, and he was aware that I was packing. I saw no such signs about CHL. Maybe they got complaints and changed the signs? Like I said, I was probably overly cautious due to inexperience. The next time I go, I'll know that it's OK to go ahead and carry inside.

[kauboy]

I arrived there about 3:00pm. I saw the black sign at the roped off line where the officers were sitting.
Did anybody else go??? What did you see?
My curiosity is through the roof on this. I'm positive of what I saw, and my wife read it too.
Like I said, I'm going back tomorrow with a buddy. If I see the same sign again, I'm gonna try and grab a snapshot with my cell cam.

NEED ANSWERS!!!

[The Annoyed Man]

I arrived there about 3:00pm. I saw the black sign at the roped off line where the officers were sitting.
Did anybody else go??? What did you see?
My curiosity is through the roof on this. I'm positive of what I saw, and my wife read it too.
Like I said, I'm going back tomorrow with a buddy. If I see the same sign again, I'm gonna try and grab a snapshot with my cell cam.

NEED ANSWERS!!!

kauboy, I got there around 12:30-1:00, and left around 4:00. BTW, I recall passing by a man and his wife in one aisle who were both wearing blue t-shirts with white lettering with the name of a Burleson area high school on the front. That wasn't you and your wife, was it? Just curious.

[57Coastie]

The Devil's Advocate would ask,

What's the problem? We must be prepared to accept a reasonable restriction on our "rights" if we expect to retain them. I stress the word "reasonable." We must be prepared to demonstrate to the general public that we CHL-holders are reasonable men and women if we expect to rebut the off-the-cuff allegations of the antis. We must be prepared to show people that when the public safety is at stake we are not the macho throw-your-weight-around types many out there wrongly think we are.

The last time I went to the Houston gun show at Reliant Center, for example, I was at liberty to carry my concealed handgun, but it had to be demonstrably unloaded. Courteous and efficient LEO's at the door would check entrants' weapons, concealed or otherwise, and disable them from functioning with a cable tie. Then you could exercise your "right" to CCW all day.

Why is the "clear language of the law" being ignored?

There are numberless people wandering around the floor of the gunshow all weekend, having unknown experience with firearms, ranging from many years down to zilch, and many of them are showing them off to strangers in an effort to sell them. Frankly, I do not want to be at a gun show where I hear actions clicking away around the floor. There are too many idiots who own firearms, CHL holders or not. Frankly, I even get nervous when I see potential buyers, or wannabes, at a booth snapping a handgun just to hear the sexy noise. Too often they do not go through basic safety procedures, such as first correctly checking to see whether it is unloaded and then pointing it in some direction other than at other patrons at the show when clicking away. Take a few moments yourself to monitor this at your next gun show.

So take your photos and take them to a cop on the street, or to the DA or a judge somewhere and prefer charges against the operators of the gun show and the cops at the door for violating the law -- and we will all then find out whether such a restriction is "reasonable" under the circumstances, regardless of what the legislature said. Or even better, insist on your "rights," keep your concealed loaded handgun on your person, and after you enter have the courage to tell the cops at the door what you are doing. There is the test for your principles. After all, we know that our esteemed legislature always covers all the bases when it enacts legislation. There are apparently many out there who seriously expect Heller, for example, to say that the Constitution means what it says, and there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction in the public interest. If our fundamental constitution accepts reasonable restrictions, is it realistic to suggest that the same is not true when it comes to enactments of our legislature?

Photos will prove nothing. The gun show and the LEOs at the door are not hiding anything. You don't have anything to prove. They will admit what they did, and why.

Test reasonable restrictions like this, directly related to public safety, and we may get a decision we are not all that happy with.

With respect to all those contrary views,

Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

Annoyed Man,

You did the right thing. You went to the right people, asked the right questions, and got the right answers. If you want to know what is allowed, in the real world, you can't do better than asking the cops guarding the door. They know what the policy of the show operator is. And they know what they are out there to do.

We have all heard of reports from time to time of shows with "no guns" signs that also say something like, "Exception for CHL holders" or something like that. Upon closer inspection, such as at the Feb. show at the Crocket Center in Austin, it turns out that the signs say, NO EXCEPTIONS FOR CHL HOLDERS".

Some, including most people on this board, believe that government-owned venues may not enforce 30.06 postings or their legal equivalents. I am highly skeptical of such beliefs. In my view, it doesn't matter whether a government entity exists ANYWHERE in the chain of ownership. What matters is who the LAST member of the chain of ownership (i.e. the entity that is actually operating the venue, who has the keys, who sets the hours and terms of admission, etc.). If the operators are a government entity, they cannot post enforceable 30.06 signs. If they are a private business of some sort, they can.

There has never been a test case so none of us really know twhat the law means. But in the real world the operators of these venues, whether it is a gun show or a place like the AA Center in Dallas, act as if my interpretation is correct.

And that is what you will encounter when you visit such venues, interesting legal theories notwithstanding.

[kauboy]

Any picture I take is for the sake of discussion here only. I don't care what "they" think about it.
Also, it isn't illegal for a venue to post an unenforceable sign. Nowhere in Texas law does it stat that it is an offense to post such a sign where one is not enforceable.

BTW Annoyed man, no that wasn't us. We were the ones pushing a baby stroller. (teach 'em young, that's my motto )

And Frankie, since you love to interpret real estate law, how does this argument strike you:

Noting that:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Question:
Would the "by" in this clause not constitute that the "government entity" is the one doing the leasing? Therefore, this law would overstep any other laws pertaining to a lease when a governmental entity is involved.
Else, it would be "leased to a government entity" if we were to assume that the government entity is at the "end of the chain", as you say.

Anyways, I'll be heading there again today, hopefully to see the same sign as yesterday, snap a shot, (carry loaded), do some AR-15 perusing, and post the pic later tonight.

If anybody else is gonna be there, I'll be in a bright orange hat. Probably the brightest in the room, with an F-35 fighter plane on it.
C'ya there!

[frankie_the_yankee]

And Frankie, since you love to interpret real estate law, how does this argument strike you:

Noting that:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Question:
Would the "by" in this clause not constitute that the "government entity" is the one doing the leasing? Therefore, this law would overstep any other laws pertaining to a lease when a governmental entity is involved.
Else, it would be "leased to a government entity" if we were to assume that the government entity is at the "end of the chain", as you say.

You raise an interesting point.

I honestly don't know what it means.

Some would say that if the government owns the property (in fee simple), it can be sublet through 20 different private parties and that none of those private parties could enforceably post it because the government owns it. In that case, one could defy the postings and, if things got all the way to court there would be nothing to worry about because you would almost certainly win.

Some would say that a private party could own it in fee simple, and that it could be sublet through numerous other parties, and that if ANY of them are a government entity, no subsequent leasees can enforceably post the property. And again, in that case, one could defy the postings and, if things got all the way to court there would be nothing to worry about because you would almost certainly win.

But there are others (like me for instance) who would say that the "owner" or "leasee" that matters as far as the statute is concerned is the last one in the chain - i.e. the party that has operational control of the property at the time, in that they control access to it, determine the hours of operation, have the keys to the doors, hire the security, and have all of the other perogatives of ownership provided for in the lease, whether that lease is for 48 hours or 99 years. So under that interpretation, the posting is fully enforceable and if someone defies the rule and managed to push it far enough so as to get them to court they would lose and be tossed into the county jail.

Which interpretation is correct? I don't honestly know. But what I do know is that in real life these places make whatever rules they want and hire security that is instructed to enforce those rules, and that the hired security does in fact enforce those rules regardless of any opinions others may have to the contrary.

So if you go to one of these places and "explain" that their "no guns" rule is not enforceable and that you are going to "prove" that by entering the venue while carrying a loaded gun, you stand an excellent chance of being detained and becoming what is commonly known as "a test case."

Now we should note that such illustrious people as Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, and others have distinguished themselves at one time or another by intentionally becoming test cases.

So it could be that there is a chance for someone to achieve TX CHL rights immortality here by forcing the issue at one of these venues.

But I wouldn't recommend it.

FWIW, my recommendation is to simply follow the rules and refrain from posting information that could possibly mislead someone into getting themselves in trouble by becoming a test case when they did not want to.

I would also note that in other instances where venues were improperly posted, the TSRA has notified the government agencies involved and in many cases has succeeded in having the improper signs removed. No such action has been taken as far as I know with respect to the AA Center or the various places where gun shows are held in TX. I don't know if that means anything or not.

[57Coastie]

Frankie says, "FWIW, my recommendation is to simply follow the rules and refrain from posting information that could possibly mislead someone into getting themselves in trouble by becoming a test case when they did not want to."

That says it in a nutshell, Frankie. Cherish your individual principles, but do not cause a newbie to innocently test your principles out when you state a disputed theory as being the gospel. If you feel strongly that you are right, have the courage to test your principles yourself, as did those courageous men and women Frankie mentions.

Jim

[Tactical_Texan_CHL]

My mom, brother and I went last year. My brother is an LEO, and my mom and I both have CHL's, all 3 of us were carrying. There was no 30.06 sign last year, but the no loaded weapons sign was up at the table where the officers were sitting. I didn't mention it since it wasn't a binding sign, bt my mom did before I could tell her not too, and she said to me, "Oh, we better unload our guns and lock them up!" in front of the officers. So the officers were very friendly, I have to say, but they told us that it did apply to CHL's also. I asked if I needed to go to the car and leave it, or if I could just go to the bathroom stall and disarm in private there. The officer told me to just disarm right there and he'd zip tie it! I asked if that was ok, and he said yes, but only because we were in the presence of an officer and at the request of an officer. I wasn't really comfortable with it, but I did. My mom was carrying in her purse at the time, and she disarmed as well. The officers had us unload both guns and the magazines and even gave us a little ziplock baggie so the ammo wasn't loose in our pockets. It was a rather strange event. They asked my brother since he was with us if he was carrying. He said yes I'm carrying, I'm officer blank with blank PD, and showed them his ID card. And they said, "OK, go enjoy the show."

[The Annoyed Man]

We were the ones pushing a baby stroller. (teach 'em young, that's my motto )

I'm pretty sure I saw you then, because I did see a couple pushing a stroller, and thought at the time how uncommon it was - and cool.

Actually, I'm wondering if whether or not the city being the property owner is irrelevant... I'm neither an attorney nor a realtor, but it would seem to me that (government excepted) the tenant gets to decide the policy, not necessarily the property owner - particularly since, in this case, the owner is the city. I don't believe it is the case that a business entity needs to be the property owner at the place where it conducts its business in order to be able to post a 30.06. I could be wrong about that, but if I'm not, then why didn't the gun show promoter, being the tenant, post a 30.06 and be done with it?

This stuff can sure be confusing...