TexasCHLforum.com

I am going to San Antonio in a few days to eat lunch at Landry's in the Tower of the Americas. Does anyone know if it is ok to carry in the tower and in Landry's? I checked the 3006.com sight and it came up negative. Thanks.

Russell wrote:From wikipedia:

In 2004, Landry's Restaurants, Inc. won the bid for a 15-year lease from the City of San Antonio to manage and operate the property.


So I would guess that the city owns it, which means a 30.06 sign would be unenforceable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_the_Americas

I don't know if it is posted or not. But I still think that if a private business holds a lease, they then have the right as a private business to post 30.06 if they choose. This is because a leasehold is a form of ownership just like a rental or a fee simple freehold is. If you rent or lease a property, you can control access to it. This can involve business hours, mode of dress, possession of cameras or recording devices, or any other legal restrictions on access (i.e. if it is a public accommodation like this example is, restrictions that do not impact a protected class).

I know that Chas has a different opinion and I respect that. But Chas has also said that there is no case law on this, so we don't know for sure how it would play out.

If the property is posted, I would honor it and urge the TSRA to work on resolving the issue once and for all.

Thanks for the help. Since parking is so far away and I am not certain on their CHL policy, I guess I will go without my pistol for this one trip. Once again, thanks.

Mako 25 wrote:Thanks for the help. Since parking is so far away and I am not certain on their CHL policy, I guess I will go without my pistol for this one trip. Once again, thanks.

Why don't you just call them and ask for a manager and ask if it is posted? I would not like to be downtown without a weapon if at all possible. I would probably make the trip back to my vehicle if I had to!

I didn't see a sign the last time I was there... but that was a LONG time ago and before I had my CHL so I wasn't as diligent about checking.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I don't know if it is posted or not. But I still think that if a private business holds a lease, they then have the right as a private business to post 30.06 if they choose.

Frankie - I respect that you are keeping this civil and sticking to your guns (pun intended) on this issue, but I gotta ask about any statute that supports this position. I know that several people have shown statute in opposition to this. You make a logical argument in favor of your position - but remember that this is the law we are talking about and logic doesn't always come into play. I urge you to find statute to support your position if you are going to continue to have it - especially when the person who essentially wrote the law in question disagrees with you.

Kalrog wrote: Frankie - I respect that you are keeping this civil and sticking to your guns (pun intended) on this issue, but I gotta ask about any statute that supports this position. I know that several people have shown statute in opposition to this. You make a logical argument in favor of your position - but remember that this is the law we are talking about and logic doesn't always come into play. I urge you to find statute to support your position if you are going to continue to have it - especially when the person who essentially wrote the law in question disagrees with you.

There isn't a specific statute and there won't be. The proper application of the law depends on what is termed "ownership". If a government entity owns the property, it may not be enforceably posted. If a private entity owns it, it can be posted.

Legally, a leasehold conveys most of the rights of outright ownership. It is in fact, a form of ownership. I regard it as significant that the statute refers to property "owned or leased" by a government entity as property that cacnnot be enforceably posted. Clearly, the statute regards ownership and leasing as equivalent. Example: The private owner can post the property, but the government leasee cannot.

Likewise, I would say that if a property is "owned or leased" by a private entity, it can be enforceably posted because the right to post lies with the leasee.

Government leasee - cannot post.

Private leasee - can post.

In my reading, whoever holds the fee simple title is out of the picture once they grant a lease. I suspect that if/when this is ever litigated, that is how it will turn out.

Russell wrote:Why then was the Texas Fair management not going to post 30.06 signs, but instead just talk to people to ask them to leave?

Why go through all that trouble if they could just put up a 30.06 sign and be done with it, regardless of if the land is city owned or not?

You'd have to ask them. All I can tell is that they preferred to give verbal notice, which is also covered in 30.06. Maybe the decision was made so late in the game that they couldn't come up with proper signage.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Legally, a leasehold conveys most of the rights of outright ownership. It is in fact, a form of ownership. I regard it as significant that the statute refers to property "owned or leased" by a government entity as property that cacnnot be enforceably posted. Clearly, the statute regards ownership and leasing as equivalent.

On the contrary. The statute wouldn't use both words if they were regarded as equivalent. And leased or not, as you point out, the city still holds the fee simple interest in the property, so it is still "owned" by the city. Regardless of who else might have a concurrent ownership interest, the statute is satisfied. In fact, I would say the statute includes any property in which a city has any ownership or leashold interest, including joint ventures, etc. And since the statute only refers to what may be done on property owned or leased by cities, I don't see any requirement for symmetry between city owners and private owners.

I am not a lawyer, and I could be completely wrong.

DallasCHL wrote: On the contrary. The statute wouldn't use both words if they were regarded as equivalent.

Sure it would. The terms themselves are not EXACTLY equivalent. In other words, they are not synonyms. Each describes a different form of ownership. The statute used both of them to make it clear that whether a government entity owned OR leased a property, it could not be enforceably posted in either case.

So the law was specifically written to treat ownership and leasing as equivalent.

They could just as well have written it to treat them as NOT equivalent if they had wanted to.

DallasCHL wrote: And leased or not, as you point out, the city still holds the fee simple interest in the property, so it is still "owned" by the city. Regardless of who else might have a concurrent ownership interest, the statute is satisfied.

I don't think so. Even with the city holding fee simple title, the leasee is the entity that has effective control of the property during the term of the lease. For instance, even holding fee simple title, the city cannot unilaterally revoke the lease and evict the private business unless the business has violated the terms of the lease.

To be more accurate, some of the above depends on the precise terms of the lease. But I would say that most leases would be written such that both parties would have to agree to any changes provided that there was no violation of the terms.

DallasCHL wrote: In fact, I would say the statute includes any property in which a city has any ownership or leashold interest, including joint ventures, etc.

I'm not sure what the status of a property with a shared ownership or leasehold status would be. THAT would be a good question.

DallasCHL wrote: And since the statute only refers to what may be done on property owned or leased by cities, I don't see any requirement for symmetry between city owners and private owners.

It has to do with what terms mean. Generally, if a word is used in a statute, it either has a defined meaning or a "common" meaning. (I know this isn't a perfect description, but I think it is close.) But whatever meaning it has, the meaning will be the same throughout the statute unless specifically defined otherwise.

The thrust of my argument is that the law regards the status of property "owned or leased" by a government entity as the same. i.e. It cannot be enforceably posted. So it seems to me that it would also regard the status of property "owned or leased" by a private entity to ALSO be the same. i.e. It CAN be enforceably posted.

Note: Just to make it clear, If I could have my way, I would like to have a situation where any place that was a public accommodation or place of employment would be required to allow for licensed concealed carry. The only places I would define as off limits would be private residences (including farms and ranches) at the owner's discretion.

KBCraig wrote:

I think in Chas' last comment on ths subject, he indicated that there was no case law, and until there was the status of these places (leased by a private entity) was indeterminent.

I agree.

I was merely responding to some who concluded that because the city held fee simple title, that the place could not be enforceably posted.

That conclusion is premature, IMO.

I just called the Tower and the lady said that they do not have 30.06 signs posted at their doorways. My family and I are going to have a nice late lunch and then a trip to Bass Pro Shops. Once again, thanks.