TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/12 ... /77022724/

I think the city is wrong... but this came from the DA? How is that possible?

-Mike-

rc-mike wrote:http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/12 ... /77022724/

I think the city is wrong... but this came from the DA? How is that possible?

-Mike-

Next the city attorney will have police writing tickets for private parking lot stop sign violations.

rc-mike wrote:http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/12 ... /77022724/

I think the city is wrong... but this came from the DA? How is that possible?

-Mike-

CORRECTION: I commented about the DA, but reading the article more slowly second time, the district attorney refused to say one way or another. The city attorney is the one claiming businesses can exclude OC on city land. District Attorney and City Attorney are different offices/people.

ELB wrote:

rc-mike wrote:http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/12 ... /77022724/

I think the city is wrong... but this came from the DA? How is that possible?

-Mike-

DAs are supposed to know and follow the law, but there are many counterexamples. When you have near-total immunity, you don't have to worry about being right quite as much as others.

The DA didn't make a statement, it was the City Attorney.

ScottDLS wrote:

ELB wrote:

rc-mike wrote:http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/12 ... /77022724/

I think the city is wrong... but this came from the DA? How is that possible?

-Mike-

DAs are supposed to know and follow the law, but there are many counterexamples. When you have near-total immunity, you don't have to worry about being right quite as much as others.

The DA didn't make a statement, it was the City Attorney.

I just caught that...

ScottDLS wrote:The DA didn't make a statement, it was the City Attorney.

I didn't catch that either. That makes me feel a little better, but I still feel that the law is very clear. They might not like it, but they are supposed to enforce it.

-Mike-

Doesn't SB273 just prohibit public entities from posting 30.06 signs? That would mean that they could post 30.07 signs.

OldAg wrote:Doesn't SB273 just prohibit public entities from posting 30.06 signs? That would mean that they could post 30.07 signs.

You're right.... the text of SB 273 does not mention 30.07........30.06 yes, but not 30.07. My guess is that this is not accidental, but we'll see. If it was an oversight, it will be hotly debated in the next session.

Maybe Charles L. Cotton could shed some light on this?

Already covered here:
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 5#p1028835

The Annoyed Man wrote:

OldAg wrote:Doesn't SB273 just prohibit public entities from posting 30.06 signs? That would mean that they could post 30.07 signs.

You're right.... the text of SB 273 does not mention 30.07........30.06 yes, but not 30.07. My guess is that this is not accidental, but we'll see. If it was an oversight, it will be hotly debated in the next session.

Maybe Charles L. Cotton could shed some light on this?

He mentioned in another thread that it was simply because SB273 passed before HB910, so there was no 30.07 sign to prohibit. You can still open carry on government property and are exempt from prosecution under 30.07. But nothing to stop them from posting the unenforceable sign.