AISD signs

[jmra]

http://www.boerne-isd.net/uploaded/facu ... ctions.pdf
A quote from the bottom of the page;
"Local government officers of the Boerne Independent School District can be viewed at:"

[jmra]

I could go on and on but I will make this the last one;
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-publi ... -salaries/
From the Texas Tribune
"Today we're launching an update to our government payroll data app to include 14 school districts and five counties — an addition of 140,000 public employees earning $6 billion in payroll."
The database now contains information on more than 480,000 employees from 47 government agencies, including the largest state agencies, counties, cities, universities, school districts and mass-transit operators. The public now can search and explore more than $21 billion in public payroll, a significant portion of government spending that was compiled with information obtained under the Texas Public Information Act.
The app now has the following districts: Northside ISD, North East ISD, El Paso ISD, Aldine ISD, Arlington ISD, Katy ISD, San Antonio ISD, Pasadena ISD, Fort Bend ISD, Lewisville ISD, Garland ISD, Round Rock ISD, Plano ISD, Highland Park ISD. 

[Kyle Brown]

I could go on and on but I will make this the last one;
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-publi ... -salaries/
From the Texas Tribune
"Today we're launching an update to our government payroll data app to include 14 school districts and five counties — an addition of 140,000 public employees earning $6 billion in payroll."
The database now contains information on more than 480,000 employees from 47 government agencies, including the largest state agencies, counties, cities, universities, school districts and mass-transit operators. The public now can search and explore more than $21 billion in public payroll, a significant portion of government spending that was compiled with information obtained under the Texas Public Information Act.
The app now has the following districts: Northside ISD, North East ISD, El Paso ISD, Aldine ISD, Arlington ISD, Katy ISD, San Antonio ISD, Pasadena ISD, Fort Bend ISD, Lewisville ISD, Garland ISD, Round Rock ISD, Plano ISD, Highland Park ISD. 

Well, I keep waiting for your statutory reference. Do you have a statutory reference which establishes an ISD as a government entity?

[G.A. Heath]

Wow, I go to bed, wake up, prep some .308 brass and see where all heck has broken loose in this thread. An entity is either a governmental body or not, Its kind of like being pregnant some one is or they are not. Based on the facts presented, opinions represented, and the ability to process information then reason with it I must concluded that ISDs are Governmental bodies.

Kyle Brown's arguments, while reasonable, are incomplete and when taken with all the information presented can explain why some ISDs think they are a semi-private organisation. That argument is just as valid as a city claiming they are a semi-private organisation because the city council are private parties and do have control of their property. Fortunately for we CHL holders those arguments are invalid.

[jmra]

I could go on and on but I will make this the last one;
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-publi ... -salaries/
From the Texas Tribune
"Today we're launching an update to our government payroll data app to include 14 school districts and five counties — an addition of 140,000 public employees earning $6 billion in payroll."
The database now contains information on more than 480,000 employees from 47 government agencies, including the largest state agencies, counties, cities, universities, school districts and mass-transit operators. The public now can search and explore more than $21 billion in public payroll, a significant portion of government spending that was compiled with information obtained under the Texas Public Information Act.
The app now has the following districts: Northside ISD, North East ISD, El Paso ISD, Aldine ISD, Arlington ISD, Katy ISD, San Antonio ISD, Pasadena ISD, Fort Bend ISD, Lewisville ISD, Garland ISD, Round Rock ISD, Plano ISD, Highland Park ISD. 

Well, I keep waiting for your statutory reference. Do you have a statutory reference which establishes an ISD as a government entity?

Case law is the determining factor in 30.06. Your misaapplication has no bearing on the thread or wether or not a 30.06 can be effectively posted in a school parking lot. I refuse to argue points that have no bearing on the question at hand.

[Keith B]

No statute needed. For our purposes as CHL holders, the Texas State Attorney General has issued his opinion that an ISD is a government body. That is all that is needed in the fact that no DA is going to go against that opinion and try to follow through pushing that the ISD was a private entity and they could legally post a 30.06 on their property. End of discussion on my part.

[jmra]

No statute needed. For our purposes as CHL holders, the Texas State Attorney General has issued his opinion that an ISD is a government body. That is all that is needed in the fact that no DA is going to go against that opinion and try to follow through pushing that the ISD was a private entity and they could legally post a 30.06 on their property. End of discussion on my part.

I'm also done.

[android]

Wow, I go to bed, wake up, prep some .308 brass and see where all heck has broken loose in this thread. An entity is either a governmental body or not, Its kind of like being pregnant some one is or they are not. Based on the facts presented, opinions represented, and the ability to process information then reason with it I must concluded that ISDs are Governmental bodies.

Kyle Brown's arguments, while reasonable, are incomplete and when taken with all the information presented can explain why some ISDs think they are a semi-private organisation. That argument is just as valid as a city claiming they are a semi-private organisation because the city council are private parties and do have control of their property. Fortunately for we CHL holders those arguments are invalid.

I thought about this last night a bit.

Here's how it should go.

First, FOIA all the ISD's 2010 census response information. I can't see that they would know you're going to use it against them and it will clearly be filled out as a taxing govt. entity.

After that, you FOIA all records, email, legal advice between ISD and any consulting law firms concerning posting and approval to post 30.06 signs on school property including contractors that made the signs, planted the signs in the ground, etc...

There has got to be a legal decision in there to do it, but I bet the lawyers advised that they shouldn't or that the signs had no legal standing. Most lawyers can read and understand the law. My money is on administrators just doing what they damn well please despite advice to the contrary.

And I would be willing to help with FOIAs in Austin if somebody that knows what to do will work with me. Although I have not seen 30.06 signs at my daughter's school yet. They are still flying the "No guns on school property even if you have a license" bull hockey signs at the parking lot entrances.

[Scott Farkus]

If you do an open records request for anything remotely having to do with attorneys, they're going to slap it down with attorney-client privilege real fast.

I guess I don't understand the problem. Schools are specifically listed as off-limits under 46.03, are they not? As I understand it, places listed under 46.03 (and 46.035) do not have to post anything - they are off-limits because 46.03 and 46.035 says so (except that certain places - churches, hospitals, amusement parks, govt meetings - were later excepted to require a 30.06 if you want them off-limits).

What are we arguing about? Any compliant or non-compliant 30.06 sign on a school building is either not relevant or redundant - you can't carry there because 46.03 (1) says you can't, unless the school itself says you can. What am I missing?

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or
goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in
Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution,
any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or
educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation
vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or
educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written
regulations or written authorization of the institution;

[jmra]

If you do an open records request for anything remotely having to do with attorneys, they're going to slap it down with attorney-client privilege real fast.

I guess I don't understand the problem. Schools are specifically listed as off-limits under 46.03, are they not? As I understand it, places listed under 46.03 (and 46.035) do not have to post anything - they are off-limits because 46.03 and 46.035 says so (except that certain places - churches, hospitals, amusement parks, govt meetings - were later excepted to require a 30.06 if you want them off-limits).

What are we arguing about? Any compliant or non-compliant 30.06 sign on a school building is either not relevant or redundant - you can't carry there because 46.03 (1) says you can't, unless the school itself says you can. What am I missing?

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or
goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in
Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution,
any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or
educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation
vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or
educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written
regulations or written authorization of the institution;

"Premises" has been defined as buildings we are not talking about the buildings we are talking about the parking lots. Parking lots and sidewalks are not covered under the regs you quoted.

[Scott Farkus]

OK, if we're just taking about the parking lots, I agree. Thanks for the clarification.

[jimlongley]

governmental subdivision or agency

Texas Penal Code 1.08
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/pe.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

And a "school district" is a governmental agency with regard to property

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 271
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SUBCHAPTER A. PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCE ACT
Sec. 271.001. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Public Property Finance Act.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.271.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b) This subchapter promotes a public purpose by furnishing governmental agencies with a feasible means to purchase or otherwise acquire, use, and finance public property.

(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state.

Therefore, though they fence off and post signs, they are preempted by 1.08, from "enforcing": the 30.06 law to the extent it imposes a penalty....

or something like that
==edited because I linked to chapter 46 penal instead of chapter 1.08 ... corrected

Isn't (4) above "statute?"

If not, why not?

If so, why, Kyle Brown, are you ignoring it while insisting that others show you a statute?

Either way it appears that there is a wealth in evidence that ISDs are indeed governmental entities and therefore cannot post VALID 30.06 signage.

[Kyle Brown]

governmental subdivision or agency

Texas Penal Code 1.08
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/pe.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

And a "school district" is a governmental agency with regard to property

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 271
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SUBCHAPTER A. PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCE ACT
Sec. 271.001. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Public Property Finance Act.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.271.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b) This subchapter promotes a public purpose by furnishing governmental agencies with a feasible means to purchase or otherwise acquire, use, and finance public property.

(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state.

Therefore, though they fence off and post signs, they are preempted by 1.08, from "enforcing": the 30.06 law to the extent it imposes a penalty....

or something like that
==edited because I linked to chapter 46 penal instead of chapter 1.08 ... corrected

Isn't (4) above "statute?"

If not, why not?

If so, why, Kyle Brown, are you ignoring it while insisting that others show you a statute?

Either way it appears that there is a wealth in evidence that ISDs are indeed governmental entities and therefore cannot post VALID 30.06 signage.

I apologize for the delay in answering your question. The Texas Education Code (TEC) indentifies and defines seveal types of public "school districts". For instance, the TEC identifies and defines Municipal School Districts, Common School Districts, Military Reservation School Districts, Independent School Districts, and Consolidated School Districts. Furthermore, the TEC specifies that the Texas Education AGENCY (TEA) shall serve as the only state AGENCY regulating ALL pubic schools and public school districts within the State Of Texas. In addition, the TEC clearly provides for the establishment and dissolution of ISDs, and specifies the subsequent disposition of real and personal property owned by those ISDs. As I understood it, a part of the discussion in this thread focused on whether an ISD can post and enforce a TPC 30.06 sign on their real property. It is my opinion that they certainly can. My opinion is based upon the manner in which an ISD is formed and/or dissolved, how an ISD may acquire and dispose of real and personal property, that an ISD is not a state agency, that the ISD board is required to take possession of real property owned by the ISD, that the board may allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property, and that the TEA does not (and I maintain cannot) deny an ISD the authority to allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property.

[jimlongley]

governmental subdivision or agency

Texas Penal Code 1.08
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/pe.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

And a "school district" is a governmental agency with regard to property

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 271
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SUBCHAPTER A. PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCE ACT
Sec. 271.001. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Public Property Finance Act.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.271.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b) This subchapter promotes a public purpose by furnishing governmental agencies with a feasible means to purchase or otherwise acquire, use, and finance public property.

(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state.

Therefore, though they fence off and post signs, they are preempted by 1.08, from "enforcing": the 30.06 law to the extent it imposes a penalty....

or something like that
==edited because I linked to chapter 46 penal instead of chapter 1.08 ... corrected

Isn't (4) above "statute?"

If not, why not?

If so, why, Kyle Brown, are you ignoring it while insisting that others show you a statute?

Either way it appears that there is a wealth in evidence that ISDs are indeed governmental entities and therefore cannot post VALID 30.06 signage.

I apologize for the delay in answering your question. The Texas Education Code (TEC) indentifies and defines seveal types of public "school districts". For instance, the TEC identifies and defines Municipal School Districts, Common School Districts, Military Reservation School Districts, Independent School Districts, and Consolidated School Districts. Furthermore, the TEC specifies that the Texas Education AGENCY (TEA) shall serve as the only state AGENCY regulating ALL pubic schools and public school districts within the State Of Texas. In addition, the TEC clearly provides for the establishment and dissolution of ISDs, and specifies the subsequent disposition of real and personal property owned by those ISDs. As I understood it, a part of the discussion in this thread focused on whether an ISD can post and enforce a TPC 30.06 sign on their real property. It is my opinion that they certainly can. My opinion is based upon the manner in which an ISD is formed and/or dissolved, how an ISD may acquire and dispose of real and personal property, that an ISD is not a state agency, that the ISD board is required to take possession of real property owned by the ISD, that the board may allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property, and that the TEA does not (and I maintain cannot) deny an ISD the authority to allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property.

ISD is a subset of "school district" therefore, by statute, it is a "Governmental agency" no matter how it was formed, how it is regulated, or by whom. There is the statute, that's all there is to it.

[Kyle Brown]

governmental subdivision or agency

Texas Penal Code 1.08
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/pe.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

And a "school district" is a governmental agency with regard to property

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 271
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SUBCHAPTER A. PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCE ACT
Sec. 271.001. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Public Property Finance Act.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.271.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b) This subchapter promotes a public purpose by furnishing governmental agencies with a feasible means to purchase or otherwise acquire, use, and finance public property.

(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state.

Therefore, though they fence off and post signs, they are preempted by 1.08, from "enforcing": the 30.06 law to the extent it imposes a penalty....

or something like that
==edited because I linked to chapter 46 penal instead of chapter 1.08 ... corrected

Isn't (4) above "statute?"

If not, why not?

If so, why, Kyle Brown, are you ignoring it while insisting that others show you a statute?

Either way it appears that there is a wealth in evidence that ISDs are indeed governmental entities and therefore cannot post VALID 30.06 signage.

I apologize for the delay in answering your question. The Texas Education Code (TEC) indentifies and defines seveal types of public "school districts". For instance, the TEC identifies and defines Municipal School Districts, Common School Districts, Military Reservation School Districts, Independent School Districts, and Consolidated School Districts. Furthermore, the TEC specifies that the Texas Education AGENCY (TEA) shall serve as the only state AGENCY regulating ALL pubic schools and public school districts within the State Of Texas. In addition, the TEC clearly provides for the establishment and dissolution of ISDs, and specifies the subsequent disposition of real and personal property owned by those ISDs. As I understood it, a part of the discussion in this thread focused on whether an ISD can post and enforce a TPC 30.06 sign on their real property. It is my opinion that they certainly can. My opinion is based upon the manner in which an ISD is formed and/or dissolved, how an ISD may acquire and dispose of real and personal property, that an ISD is not a state agency, that the ISD board is required to take possession of real property owned by the ISD, that the board may allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property, and that the TEA does not (and I maintain cannot) deny an ISD the authority to allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property.

ISD is a subset of "school district" therefore, by statute, it is a "Governmental agency" no matter how it was formed, how it is regulated, or by whom. There is the statute, that's all there is to it.

LOL...all I can say in response is you have made a very broad statement. If I understand you correctly, you have determined that a 'school district' is a 'government agency' REGARDLESS of how it was formed, how it is regulated, or by whom...very broad and (in my opinion) totally unsupportable. The TEC is full of references in regard to defining specific types of school districts, and how they are totally different with regard to how they are formed/dissolved, how they are regulated, and who regulates them. Have you actually read any part of the TEC???