TexasCHLforum.com

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

This sign looks correct, but it is posted at the front door of the City of Houston Permit Center. No public meetings are held here. Is this legal for the City of Houston to do this?

If it is illegal, can you still enter concealed?

All of my answers are based solely on your description of the building and the photo.

It is legal for the city to post this sign. It is also legal for you to ignore the sign.

There is no law forbidding the city from posting any sign of this type that it so desires. This means that it is legal (as in not illegal) to post the sign. The law simply says the sign is not legally enforceable in certain cases. This means it is legal for you to ignore the sign (as in not illegal for a CHL to enter).

In addition there is the gray area question of whether or not white letters on clear or tinted glass meet the requirement for contrasting colors. Since the sign is not enforceable anyway, I do not wish to debate this part, just pointing out that there are conflicting opinions on it.

srothstein wrote:All of my answers are based solely on your description of the building and the photo.

It is legal for the city to post this sign. It is also legal for you to ignore the sign.

There is no law forbidding the city from posting any sign of this type that it so desires. This means that it is legal (as in not illegal) to post the sign. The law simply says the sign is not legally enforceable in certain cases. This means it is legal for you to ignore the sign (as in not illegal for a CHL to enter).

In addition there is the gray area question of whether or not white letters on clear or tinted glass meet the requirement for contrasting colors. Since the sign is not enforceable anyway, I do not wish to debate this part, just pointing out that there are conflicting opinions on it.

Can you elaborate on why it is legal for him to ignore the sign? It looks valid to me. I'm the furthest from an expert as you can get though.

KWalk313000 wrote:Can you elaborate on why it is legal for him to ignore the sign? It looks valid to me. I'm the furthest from an expert as you can get though.

30.06(e) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

apostate wrote:

KWalk313000 wrote:Can you elaborate on why it is legal for him to ignore the sign? It looks valid to me. I'm the furthest from an expert as you can get though.

30.06(e) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ahhhh I see.

KWalk313000 wrote:Can you elaborate on why it is legal for him to ignore the sign? It looks valid to me. I'm the furthest from an expert as you can get though.

When you read down through all of section 30.06 at the link posted, you should note that subsection (e) says that it is an exception to the application if the property is owned or leased by a governmental entity. This means that it is not illegal for a CHL to enter a governmental building in most cases (there are a few exceptions elsewhere, such as courts).

And while there might be an argument that it would constitute notice under criminal trespass, 30.05, also, there is a section in that code to protect CHL's. It is not as good as the 30.06 exception because it is just a defense, but it would have the same net effect.

srothstein wrote:All of my answers are based solely on your description of the building and the photo.

It is legal for the city to post this sign. It is also legal for you to ignore the sign.

There is no law forbidding the city from posting any sign of this type that it so desires. This means that it is legal (as in not illegal) to post the sign. The law simply says the sign is not legally enforceable in certain cases. This means it is legal for you to ignore the sign (as in not illegal for a CHL to enter).

In addition there is the gray area question of whether or not white letters on clear or tinted glass meet the requirement for contrasting colors. Since the sign is not enforceable anyway, I do not wish to debate this part, just pointing out that there are conflicting opinions on it.

So there is no offense to posting a valid sign in a non valid location. This is a city government owned building. The sign generally looks like as photographed during the day, at night I'm unsure.

Thanks for the information. Concealed is concealed, but I bet if the armed guards on the first floor found out you were carrying, you would be detained and arrested.

philip964 wrote:

srothstein wrote:All of my answers are based solely on your description of the building and the photo.

It is legal for the city to post this sign. It is also legal for you to ignore the sign.

There is no law forbidding the city from posting any sign of this type that it so desires. This means that it is legal (as in not illegal) to post the sign. The law simply says the sign is not legally enforceable in certain cases. This means it is legal for you to ignore the sign (as in not illegal for a CHL to enter).

In addition there is the gray area question of whether or not white letters on clear or tinted glass meet the requirement for contrasting colors. Since the sign is not enforceable anyway, I do not wish to debate this part, just pointing out that there are conflicting opinions on it.

So there is no offense to posting a valid sign in a non valid location. This is a city government owned building. The sign generally looks like as photographed during the day, at night I'm unsure.

Thanks for the information. Concealed is concealed, but I bet if the armed guards on the first floor found out you were carrying, you would be detained and arrested.

I am sure that you are correct. It is my personal opinion that any government agency building that is authorized under the statutes to admit CHL'ers should NOT BE ALLOWED to post correctly or incorrectly. In my mind this is just a notice that you are going to get trouble from Officials in one way or another if you get searched.

I have been told that there are some states where municipal officials who pass local firearm laws, post no gun signs, or enforce such in violation of their state's law can be personally sued in civil court. I wish we had such here. It seems only fair that "we the people" should be able to punish a misbehaving politician or official to the same extent as that which they would perform on a citizen who abides by state law.

John Basil Barnhill, a publisher, printed in a 1914 debate against socialism:

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

He may have had a point.

To me, this is no different than a cop giving you an order that conflicts with the law. It is a statement by a government authority prohibiting behavior that is legal.

Tempted to order a sign

http://i342.photobucket.com/albums/o433 ... 1327684380" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...methinks, though factually correct, thee wouldst be tuggin' on Superman's cape, if you started to apply those where "needed"...

speedsix wrote:...methinks, though factually correct, thee wouldst be tuggin' on Superman's cape, if you started to apply those where "needed"...

True.

I noticed in the paper my city (very small town) has a couple city council positions and school board positions becoming vacant where term limits prevent the guys in office from running again. No problems with carrying here, but city/school finances need fixin' However if I still lived in Houston, I might make a donation of lettering to the municipality and not expect to be paid for my service, ... wonder if it's tax deductible ... I wonder if some unemployed person would accept a TEMP job applying them for pay instead of buying spray paint and defacing property with tagging ..

They might even get a free meal or so and an orange suit and a warm place to sleep for a while, but I'm not sure it breaks a law ...

stick on vinyl sign lettering donated to the city ... correcting a city error ... I wouldn't consider vandalism ... and a decent judge would get a laugh out of it.

Glad I live far away from that place now

Just came to mind as a cousin owns a sign company ... and I wonder how long it would be up before anyone cared. Most city workers would just think "oh another sign the city contracted to be put up which doesn't apply to me, so I won't bother reading it ..." never research either law, probably think that the new added sign is clarification that tcleose certified Police Officers are ok there, and never think about it. ... anyone who did, would(should) order both removed.

I haven't been to the main City of Houston building in a while but they have a "improper" sign that does not exclude CHL. But you have to go through the complete screening just like at the airport circa 1999, metal detectors etc.
I asked about the sign and asked whether ligit CHL was excluded and the security guard said no, but that CHL could not occur at any public meetings.

Here at this new location they do not have any metal detectors, but have this correct sign.

I wonder if the sign has changed at the other building.

Houston Public Library used to have a sign. Maybe still does but I haven't been in a while. Their detectors are theft prevention not gun prevention so I followed the law and ignored the sign.