George R Brown Convention Center Houston - Offlimits to CC?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Except as expressly set out in TPC §30.06, a 30.06 sign cannot be used to exclude an armed CHL from government-owned property or property leased by the government. Renting or leasing government property to a non-governmental entity or a person does not change this. This issue came up during discussion on SB501 and the language of the statute is very clear. It is the ownership (or leasing) of the property by a governmental entity that is controlling.

The argument that a lessee can post a valid 30.06 sign has it’s origin in Texas property law. A lessee/renter generally assumes all of the rights and responsibilities of the owner of the property, subject to any limitations in the lease/rental contract. The lessee/renter also takes the property subject to any statutory limitations and/or responsibilities. For example, if I rent a building with intent to open a bar, I cannot do so if the building is in a “dry� county. It doesn’t matter what is contained in my lease contract with the building owner, I cannot do that which the owner couldn’t do. Here is another example. If I sublet my office space to another attorney and move to another building, he can do anything I could have done, i.e. he’s subject to the terms and limitations in my lease with the building owner. Even if my sub-lease with him expressly states that he can have a fireplace in his office, he is still bound by the limitations in my contract with the building owner that forbids any open flames in the office.

No property owner can transfer greater rights than they possess, whether the property owner is a private entity or person, or a governmental entity. This argument is routinely used to thwart the clear language of TPC §30.06, but it’s invalid. However, here is the obligatory attorney’s warning - there is no case law on point, so we’re still waiting on the test case.

Chas.

[Replaced Texan]

Except as expressly set out in TPC §30.06, a 30.06 sign cannot be used to exclude an armed CHL from government-owned property or property leased by the government. Renting or leasing government property to a non-governmental entity or a person does not change this. This issue came up during discussion on SB501 and the language of the statute is very clear. It is the ownership (or leasing) of the property by a governmental entity that is controlling.

Under what authority would the renter of the property then be able to prohibit CHL at his event?

[stevie_d_64]

Except as expressly set out in TPC §30.06, a 30.06 sign cannot be used to exclude an armed CHL from government-owned property or property leased by the government. Renting or leasing government property to a non-governmental entity or a person does not change this. This issue came up during discussion on SB501 and the language of the statute is very clear. It is the ownership (or leasing) of the property by a governmental entity that is controlling.

The argument that a lessee can post a valid 30.06 sign has it’s origin in Texas property law. A lessee/renter generally assumes all of the rights and responsibilities of the owner of the property, subject to any limitations in the lease/rental contract. The lessee/renter also takes the property subject to any statutory limitations and/or responsibilities. For example, if I rent a building with intent to open a bar, I cannot do so if the building is in a “dry� county. It doesn’t matter what is contained in my lease contract with the building owner, I cannot do that which the owner couldn’t do. Here is another example. If I sublet my office space to another attorney and move to another building, he can do anything I could have done, i.e. he’s subject to the terms and limitations in my lease with the building owner. Even if my sub-lease with him expressly states that he can have a fireplace in his office, he is still bound by the limitations in my contract with the building owner that forbids any open flames in the office.

No property owner can transfer greater rights than they possess, whether the property owner is a private entity or person, or a governmental entity. This argument is routinely used to thwart the clear language of TPC §30.06, but it’s invalid. However, here is the obligatory attorney’s warning - there is no case law on point, so we’re still waiting on the test case.

Chas.

So then it is clear that the posting of a 30.06 sign at a gunshow event in the GRB is illegal or non-binding then...

So if it is discovered that you busted that sign by entering an area that has been posted improperly, they should still arrest you, charge you, and thus force you (Mr. or Mrs. Test Case) spend lots of money defending yourself against these false charges, to have the court finally rule on your behalf against something that should not have been posted in the first place???

Isn't there a legal proceding, like a "friend of the court" to float a hypothetical case, before a court, that would rule over a "case" like this, without a citizen proving the point???

Or am I barking up a tree with no squirrels in it???

[barres]

Except as expressly set out in TPC §30.06, a 30.06 sign cannot be used to exclude an armed CHL from government-owned property or property leased by the government. Renting or leasing government property to a non-governmental entity or a person does not change this. This issue came up during discussion on SB501 and the language of the statute is very clear. It is the ownership (or leasing) of the property by a governmental entity that is controlling.

Under what authority would the renter of the property then be able to prohibit CHL at his event?

Um... None. Except that some LEO's/DA's might back him up regardless of what the law states.

[barres]

So then it is clear that the posting of a 30.06 sign at a gunshow event in the GRB is illegal or non-binding then...

So if it is discovered that you busted that sign by entering an area that has been posted improperly, they should still arrest you, charge you, and thus force you (Mr. or Mrs. Test Case) spend lots of money defending yourself against these false charges, to have the court finally rule on your behalf against something that should not have been posted in the first place???

Isn't there a legal proceding, like a "friend of the court" to float a hypothetical case, before a court, that would rule over a "case" like this, without a citizen proving the point???

Or am I barking up a tree with no squirrels in it???

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I would think that such a clear wording of this particular law would invite someone to represent themself, but I always remember the addage, "The man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." I know I couldn't afford the legal fees and probable loss of my job to be the test case, but this sort of thing really chaps my hide.

[barres]

Now, what about the Lone Star Convention Center where the Saxet show is held in Conroe? Is that owned or leased by a government entity?

Did some digging and answered my own question. The Lone Star Expo and Convention Center is owned by Montgomery County. Should be another slam dunk to ignore 30.06 signs. Emphasis on "should."

[Charles L. Cotton]

Except as expressly set out in TPC §30.06, a 30.06 sign cannot be used to exclude an armed CHL from government-owned property or property leased by the government. Renting or leasing government property to a non-governmental entity or a person does not change this. This issue came up during discussion on SB501 and the language of the statute is very clear. It is the ownership (or leasing) of the property by a governmental entity that is controlling.

Under what authority would the renter of the property then be able to prohibit CHL at his event?

None. If a private entity wants to host an event and does not want to allow CHL's to come armed, then they need to rent a privately-owned facility they can post.

Before anyone gets too upset with gun show promoters about 30.06 signs, it is my understanding that they can’t get insurance if they don’t prohibit loaded firearms on the premises. I’m not saying this is true, but this is what I was told by people who should know. Without insurance, it’s virtually impossible to rent space from anyone for an event, especially facilities owned by a governmental entity.

I don’t condone the improper posting of 30.06 signs, and I’ve made that position clear many times on this forum. I’m just pointing out the reality of the situation: no insurance = no gun show.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Except as expressly set out in TPC §30.06, a 30.06 sign cannot be used to exclude an armed CHL from government-owned property or property leased by the government. Renting or leasing government property to a non-governmental entity or a person does not change this. This issue came up during discussion on SB501 and the language of the statute is very clear. It is the ownership (or leasing) of the property by a governmental entity that is controlling.

The argument that a lessee can post a valid 30.06 sign has it’s origin in Texas property law. A lessee/renter generally assumes all of the rights and responsibilities of the owner of the property, subject to any limitations in the lease/rental contract. The lessee/renter also takes the property subject to any statutory limitations and/or responsibilities. For example, if I rent a building with intent to open a bar, I cannot do so if the building is in a “dry� county. It doesn’t matter what is contained in my lease contract with the building owner, I cannot do that which the owner couldn’t do. Here is another example. If I sublet my office space to another attorney and move to another building, he can do anything I could have done, i.e. he’s subject to the terms and limitations in my lease with the building owner. Even if my sub-lease with him expressly states that he can have a fireplace in his office, he is still bound by the limitations in my contract with the building owner that forbids any open flames in the office.

No property owner can transfer greater rights than they possess, whether the property owner is a private entity or person, or a governmental entity. This argument is routinely used to thwart the clear language of TPC §30.06, but it’s invalid. However, here is the obligatory attorney’s warning - there is no case law on point, so we’re still waiting on the test case.

Chas.

So then it is clear that the posting of a 30.06 sign at a gunshow event in the GRB is illegal or non-binding then...

So if it is discovered that you busted that sign by entering an area that has been posted improperly, they should still arrest you, charge you, and thus force you (Mr. or Mrs. Test Case) spend lots of money defending yourself against these false charges, to have the court finally rule on your behalf against something that should not have been posted in the first place???

Isn't there a legal proceding, like a "friend of the court" to float a hypothetical case, before a court, that would rule over a "case" like this, without a citizen proving the point???

Or am I barking up a tree with no squirrels in it???

I can't get too far into the criminal procedure arena without merely guessing. However, since we're dealing with a private entity or person posting a sign and not arguably unlawful governmental conduct, I don't believe this issue could be pursued to an appellate court without an arrest and conviction. If we have any attorneys that practice criminal law here, please chime in if this is wrong.

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

I recall you saying that Charles...And it just amazes me to no end that the work around to the law is that the insurance companies compel promoters (gunshows) to break the law...

And the government turns a blind eye...

If someone could explain to me what authority an insurance company has over any of us...

I would surely like to know...

Because another deep-seeded belief I have is that insurance companies are inhierently evil...But for some reason the government forces me to pay restitution to this entity so that I can continue to pursue life, liberty and happiness...

Wait...I just got hit upside the head with this box...And it wasn't labeled "Vonage" (some of y'all might get that... )

[longtooth]

I didn't get it.

[stevie_d_64]

I didn't get it.

Check yer inbox...

[longtooth]

I did. KNew it had to be TV.