Summer Adventures at Fair Park
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: Summer Adventures at Fair Park
Here's my take, though it is not a legal one. I believe that 46.035 must be completely taken into account as a whole. That means that subsection (i) has to be applied to (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) - 30.06 posted - to be prohibited. So, in 30.06, since they can't validly post a 30.06, then (i) can't be applied to make b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) prohibited. It would take a AG opinion or case to set precidence to see how this would play out. Best bet in this case is to hope that Fair Park just applies the same rules on concealed carry to Summer Adventures that they do to the State Fair and we are good to go.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
Psalm 82:3-4
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
Psalm 82:3-4
-
srothstein
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 5298
- Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
- Location: Luling, TX
Re: Summer Adventures at Fair Park
I have posted this before, and you may all disagree, but there are a few points many here seem to be missing. First, we need to remember that it is not (YET) illegal to post 30.06 notice on government property. The notice may or may not be enforceable, but it can be posted. Some of the posters seem to think the sign would not apply because the city cannot "legally" post 30.06. They can legally post, and the question becomes if the posting is enforceable, not if it is legal.
Second, and much more important, is if the posting has to be enforceable under 30.06. Section 46.035 says the park is not banned unless notice under 30.06 is received. This does not require that the notice be enforceable under 30.06, just that it matches the legal wording and requirements to be effective. Remember that the term "effective notice" is defined in 30.06. Just as we can apply the definition of premises in 46.035 to other sections, we can apply the definition of effective notice in 30.06 to other sections, without regard to whether the other section applies to what we are discussing. So, if city property includes an amusement park that is posted to match 30.06, the posting makes it illegal under 46.035 even if it cannot be enforced under 30.06. I think I have pointed out before that if the park were not city owned, it also means you could be charged with two separate crimes, violation of 46.035 or 30.06 or both.
Third, and almost as important, is the clause in 30.06 that has already been pointed out. When 30.06 says it does not apply to government property, it specifically says that cities can post properties that are part of the list in 46.035. So, a city owned amusement park could be properly posted and be illegal.
Which means that what Seamus has posted becomes the controlling factor here. Fair Park does not meet other definitions of an amusement park, so the postings are not valid and no crime is committed by your carrying there. But it is the 75 acres, rides, and 120 days that make the difference, not the city owning it. I am not aware of any government owned amusement parks left in Texas.
Second, and much more important, is if the posting has to be enforceable under 30.06. Section 46.035 says the park is not banned unless notice under 30.06 is received. This does not require that the notice be enforceable under 30.06, just that it matches the legal wording and requirements to be effective. Remember that the term "effective notice" is defined in 30.06. Just as we can apply the definition of premises in 46.035 to other sections, we can apply the definition of effective notice in 30.06 to other sections, without regard to whether the other section applies to what we are discussing. So, if city property includes an amusement park that is posted to match 30.06, the posting makes it illegal under 46.035 even if it cannot be enforced under 30.06. I think I have pointed out before that if the park were not city owned, it also means you could be charged with two separate crimes, violation of 46.035 or 30.06 or both.
Third, and almost as important, is the clause in 30.06 that has already been pointed out. When 30.06 says it does not apply to government property, it specifically says that cities can post properties that are part of the list in 46.035. So, a city owned amusement park could be properly posted and be illegal.
Which means that what Seamus has posted becomes the controlling factor here. Fair Park does not meet other definitions of an amusement park, so the postings are not valid and no crime is committed by your carrying there. But it is the 75 acres, rides, and 120 days that make the difference, not the city owning it. I am not aware of any government owned amusement parks left in Texas.
Steve Rothstein