TexasCHLforum.com

I live at The Domain mixed use property in Austin. For those that don't know, it is an outdoor mall with stores/restaurants on street level and apartments/offices above. The main part of The Domain is owned/operated by Simon Malls, who has made their stand on concealed/open carry very clear.

BUT HERE IS MY QUESTION: To get from your apartment to the parking garage in The Domain, you have to walk through the main part of the mall. If Simon prohibits weapons, how are you to negotiate this?

Here is the canned response I got from Simon:
"Thank you for your email. As a private property owner, Simon will continue to enforce its existing policy of not allowing possession of any weapon on its property, whether concealed or displayed openly, other than licensed weapons carried by law enforcement personnel."

To which I replied:
"Thank you for your response. I'd like to seek further clarification, however, as I don't think this really answers my question. By law, renters of apartments have a right to possess weapons in the apartment unit leased by them. So what are they to do about transporting said weapons from their unit to their vehicle, which would require walking through the mall, thus putting them in violation of your policy? Please answer that question specifically. Thank you."

Standing by for response from them. What are your thoughts?

Have they posted 30.06 signs? If not, carry on.

If they have posted 30.06 signs, you might be able to transport your firearm in a case to your residence. In other words, don't carry under the authority of your CHL. There's also an exemption that you may be able to carry concealed to and from your home & vehicle as a non-CHL holder would.

However, if they do have a 30.06 sign posted, you might want to speak to a lawyer who specializes in firearm cases and/or tenant rights.

They have not posted signs - it would be nearly impossible to do so, and be within requirements, because of the layout of the property. Plus, Simon has made it clear that in many cases their "policy stands" regardless of signs (laughable). I plan to continue carrying. Just wanted them to see the muddy waters they are getting into...

mr1337 wrote:Have they posted 30.06 signs? If not, carry on.

If they have posted 30.06 signs, you might be able to transport your firearm in a case to your residence. In other words, don't carry under the authority of your CHL. There's also an exemption that you may be able to carry concealed to and from your home & vehicle as a non-CHL holder would.

However, if they do have a 30.06 sign posted, you might want to speak to a lawyer who specializes in firearm cases and/or tenant rights.

atx2a wrote:They have not posted signs - it would be nearly impossible to do so, and be within requirements, because of the layout of the property. Plus, Simon has made it clear that in many cases their "policy stands" regardless of signs (laughable). I plan to continue carrying. Just wanted them to see the muddy waters they are getting into...

mr1337 wrote:Have they posted 30.06 signs? If not, carry on.

If they have posted 30.06 signs, you might be able to transport your firearm in a case to your residence. In other words, don't carry under the authority of your CHL. There's also an exemption that you may be able to carry concealed to and from your home & vehicle as a non-CHL holder would.

However, if they do have a 30.06 sign posted, you might want to speak to a lawyer who specializes in firearm cases and/or tenant rights.

You also are allowed by MPA to carry to and from your residence to your car whether a 30.06 is posted or not. Also you can carry for any of the other 46.15 exceptions (to/from sporting activity, to/from hunting, etc.).

That's what I thought. I don't plan on pushing the issue, but will continue to conceal to and from my car. These talking heads spitting uot canned responses drive me nuts. Do you think they are intentionally trying to mislead people, or just don't know any better?

ScottDLS wrote:

atx2a wrote:They have not posted signs - it would be nearly impossible to do so, and be within requirements, because of the layout of the property. Plus, Simon has made it clear that in many cases their "policy stands" regardless of signs (laughable). I plan to continue carrying. Just wanted them to see the muddy waters they are getting into...

mr1337 wrote:Have they posted 30.06 signs? If not, carry on.

If they have posted 30.06 signs, you might be able to transport your firearm in a case to your residence. In other words, don't carry under the authority of your CHL. There's also an exemption that you may be able to carry concealed to and from your home & vehicle as a non-CHL holder would.

However, if they do have a 30.06 sign posted, you might want to speak to a lawyer who specializes in firearm cases and/or tenant rights.

You also are allowed by MPA to carry to and from your residence to your car whether a 30.06 is posted or not. Also you can carry for any of the other 46.15 exceptions (to/from sporting activity, to/from hunting, etc.).

My advice is to just let the issue go, as to not draw attention to the lack of signage at that property and their other properties. Keep it concealed and you're in the clear.

We had a talk about this in my Austin CHL class. They cannot restrict tenants from their weapons, end of story. If you want to cause a ruckus, pay your $10 fee for one month of "unsaid prepaid legal firearms service" and have them take it up with the landlord. It has been done and has been very effective.

jb2012 wrote:We had a talk about this in my Austin CHL class. They cannot restrict tenants from their weapons, end of story. If you want to cause a ruckus, pay your $10 fee for one month of "unsaid prepaid legal firearms service" and have them take it up with the landlord. It has been done and has been very effective.

If you're talking about the one that was pitched to US during our chl class, they may be able to clarify the LAW, but they won't SHIELD you from the landlord. They will allegedly(sic) represent you in court in the aftermath of a defensive shooting. They are not going to go to court over this. I am either endorsing nor condemning use of such service.

Thanks for the replies. I don't plan on pushing it with them, was just curious about thoughts from everyone. Like I said, I'll continue to quietly carry and mind my own business. I didn't give them my name/info when emailing, so they have no way of knowing who I was so as to give me a hard time.

Carry on!

mr1337 wrote:

jb2012 wrote:We had a talk about this in my Austin CHL class. They cannot restrict tenants from their weapons, end of story. If you want to cause a ruckus, pay your $10 fee for one month of "unsaid prepaid legal firearms service" and have them take it up with the landlord. It has been done and has been very effective.

If you're talking about the one that was pitched to US during our chl class, they may be able to clarify the LAW, but they won't SHIELD you from the landlord. They will allegedly(sic) represent you in court in the aftermath of a defensive shooting. They are not going to go to court over this. I am either endorsing nor condemning use of such service.

Yes I am talking about the one pitched to us in our class, and yeah you are probably 100% right, but the "story" was that the service contacted the landlord and took care of the situation. I have no idea if they actually would, just a thought!

jb2012 wrote: Yes I am talking about the one pitched to us in our class, and yeah you are probably 100% right, but the "story" was that the service contacted the landlord and took care of the situation. I have no idea if they actually would, just a thought!

My understanding about the one that was pitched in your class is that they're not going to take up any legal issue on your behalf unless it involves drawing a firearm. That may run contrary to what was pitched in your class, but I'll bet you find it in the fine print.

If there are no 30.06 signs, why did you bother asking Simon about the mall?

Did I misinterpret your comment that there are no 30.06 signs because of the layout?

I guess my point is, if I don't see a 30.06 sign, no other "policy" matters to me, so why stir the pot?

cb1000rider wrote:

jb2012 wrote: Yes I am talking about the one pitched to us in our class, and yeah you are probably 100% right, but the "story" was that the service contacted the landlord and took care of the situation. I have no idea if they actually would, just a thought!

My understanding about the one that was pitched in your class is that they're not going to take up any legal issue on your behalf unless it involves drawing a firearm. That may run contrary to what was pitched in your class, but I'll bet you find it in the fine print.

They may not contact the landlord, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. They contacted a law school in Houston following the passage of SB 11 and they contacted the Houston Zoo just before the originally took down their 30.06 signs. There weren't any uses of a firearm in those instances, and I don't know if they were spurred by any of their members to make those communications, but I honestly think that the attorneys who work with that group are probably more like typical pro-gun folks than the snake oil salesmen they are portrayed as.

The Domain isn't posted, neither are any of the stores. I carried there just before Christmas. Add to that, neither a landlord, nor an HOA can prevent a person from carrying from a vehicle to their residence. Now, they may post a 30.07, and they are within their rights to do that, but otherwise you're fine.

What if you're carrying to a friend's vehicle in your apartment complex? Is that legal?