TexasCHLforum.com

As expected, I received a letter from the AG regarding my wrongful posting complaint (that I sent a year ago). It basically did like several others and closed the complaint with no action since the City is leasing the property to a non-profit and the non-profit is the entity that put up the 30.06 signs (referenced the AG opinion).

My question is: Has any of our legislatures submitted a bill to address this work-around that many of the governing bodies are using to "restrict" concealed carry on government property?

If I understand the AG's position correctly (which is a big "if"), he is not saying that anyone can legally restrict our right to carry on government owned property. He is just saying that the "fines for signs" law does not allow for the fining of the government entity, since they did not post the signs, and also does not apply to the non-governmental entity that did post the signs since they are not a government entity.

So, no one is violating the "fines for signs" law as it is currently written, but the signs are also unenforceable, and presumably the government would be guilty of other crimes if they instruct their LEO employees to arrest LTC holders who are carrying past these invalid signs (false arrest, assault, etc).

Is this how other people understand the situation?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If I understand the AG's position correctly (which is a big "if"), he is not saying that anyone can legally restrict our right to carry on government owned property. He is just saying that the "fines for signs" law does not allow for the fining of the government entity, since they did not post the signs, and also does not apply to the non-governmental entity that did post the signs since they are not a government entity.

So, no one is violating the "fines for signs" law as it is currently written, but the signs are also unenforceable, and presumably the government would be guilty of other crimes if they instruct their LEO employees to arrest LTC holders who are carrying past these invalid signs (false arrest, assault, etc).

Is this how other people understand the situation?

That was my understanding, but it is a very convoluted way to render an opinion. You must also remember that it is just that, an opinion. There is no case law to use as a precedence, and only states that a court of law would likely find the opinion to be true. It will still take a court case, or the modification of the law itself, to have the force of law. JMHO

In a proper world, as soon as the government entity who can't be fined for posting the signs lets the private company get away with posting government property, the government entity would be guilty of conspiracy to violate the law.

But that's deplorable of me to think that way.

I've always wondered if the language of the law would cause an issue with regard to whether the government was the lesser or lessor of leased property. I was once sternly reminded the law doesn't make a distinction whether the government entity is the landlord or tenant. Apparently, I'm not the only one that sees the vagueness in the language of the law.

When a landlord leases a piece of real property to a tenant, he transfers certain rights to the tenant that gives the tenant the ability to control the property and it's use. Apparently, the AG's office seems to think one of the decisions a tenant has the right to make is whether or not to post 30.06 or 30.07 signs regardless who owns the property. I doubt it is limited to just non-profit tenants.

treadlightly wrote:In a proper world, as soon as the government entity who can't be fined for posting the signs lets the private company get away with posting government property, the government entity would be guilty of conspiracy to violate the law.

But that's deplorable of me to think that way.

If the City of Houston leased NRG stadium to a vendor who posted a sign saying "No Gays allowed", exactly how long do you think it would be before the city demanded the removal that sign?

I actually would pose a different question: I buy a lot in Fort Worth that is zoned single family residential. I then lease it to someone else and they build a bed and breakfast on the lot. When the City sends me a cease and desist letter, can I just claim that, even though I own the property, my tenant's lease allows them to control how it is used?

mojo84 wrote:I've always wondered if the language of the law would cause an issue with regard to whether the government was the lesser or lessor of leased property. I was once sternly reminded the law doesn't make a distinction whether the government entity is the landlord or tenant. Apparently, I'm not the only one that sees the vagueness in the language of the law.

When a landlord leases a piece of real property to a tenant, he transfers certain rights to the tenant that gives the tenant the ability to control the property and it's use. Apparently, the AG's office seems to think one of the decisions a tenant has the right to make is whether or not to post 30.06 or 30.07 signs regardless who owns the property. I doubt it is limited to just non-profit tenants.

As we found out, they CAN post the signs. But if you manage to sneak past there's nothing you can be charged with.

ETA: Well...you could be charged with capital murder...but would it stick? With the death penalty on the table i'm not sure i'd want to be the test case.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

treadlightly wrote:In a proper world, as soon as the government entity who can't be fined for posting the signs lets the private company get away with posting government property, the government entity would be guilty of conspiracy to violate the law.

But that's deplorable of me to think that way.

If the City of Houston leased NRG stadium to a vendor who posted a sign saying "No Gays allowed", exactly how long do you think it would be before the city demanded the removal that sign?

That sign would make it a class B misdemeanor for a "person of gayness" to enter. Because of private property rights and Texas' longstanding respect and recognition thereof... Or something....