How to report improper §30.06 signs

[mojo84]

It was pointed out to me a while back it doesn't matter if the government is the lessor or lessee because the law doesn't specify either. Therefore, it applies in either case.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Everyone agrees that if the government leases property to someone that the lessee is prohibited from posting 30.06. But what about if someone leases property to the government? The law says:

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of
the state may not provide notice by a communication described by
Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to
that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder
carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is
prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place
owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders
are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other
place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

So the first question is, what does "leased" mean? As far as I can tell, the dictionary definition of the verb "lease" can be used both for the letting of property by the lessor and the hiring of property by the lessee. But the dictionary definition isn't necessarily the legal definition. I wasn't able to find the legal definition of "lease" in the Texas state code, but I did see in Government Code 2167 where the verb "lease" is used in talking about the state hiring property as the lessee. So it appears that the state may not post a 30.06 sign on property they hire as the lessee.

The second question is, what is "provide notice?" Ok, providing notice is posting the sign, but did the state really provide notice if they didn't post the sign, but instead the property owner posted the sign? What about if the sign is not posted on property leased by the government as the lessee, but the sign is posted only on property the landlord has not leased, but is property which anyone must pass through in order to enter the property leased by the government as lessee? For example, if a government agency leases one floor on a multi-story office building, they don't seem to be able to post a 30.06 outside their office door on that floor, but I'm not sure if the building management can't post a 30.06 on the first floor entrance. I'm pretty sure I've read of a legal doctrine (not sure of the name) where if a government entity may not perform some action then they can't require someone else to perform that action (e.g. as part of a legal agreement like a lease). But what about a lease that was signed before SB 273 came into effect? Is that now nullified?

If there's nothing preventing 30.06 posting on property leased by a government as a lessee, I can really see the Dallas Zoo (or someone similar) doing something retarded like selling a 1' strip of property surrounding the zoo to a private entity, which then posts a 30.06 on the property and leases the 1' strip back to the zoo on a 99-year lease.

As mojo84 noted, "leased" means as a lessor or lessee. The term is commonly used and needs no statutory definition. As a practical matter, the "as lessor" application will never be an issue, because the property will be owned by the government and this is a controlling issue. It doesn't matter if the government uses the property, leases it to someone else, or let's it sit unused. If the government owns the property, then the inquiry stops at that point and the provisions of SB273 apply.

The real application related to leased property is when the government leases property from a private individual or entity. SB273 applies to it as well.

"Notice" per TPC §30.06 can be oral, written, or by sign. Any of those methods of notifying a CHL will trigger SB273. If a government leases property and takes any steps to require the owner to post 30.06 signs, then the government will be sued and government officials involved may be charged with a criminal offense related to conspiring to violate Texas law. Selling property around a zoo, etc. isn't realistic. It would accomplish nothing because the legislature would be so infuriated that the law would change to deal with that issue.

Chas.

[CleverNickname]

Ok, but what about my example of a government agency leasing an office in a multistory office building where a 30.06 was already posted before they started their lease? The government didn't require the sign be posted, and the sign is not on property leased by them, but it's on property retained by the lessor, but it's property that anyone entering the government-leased property must enter to get to the government-leased property (e.g., the lobby). If it's the sign is on private property, then how would suing the government help? This situation wouldn't be the egregious nose-thumbing that the 1' zoo example would be.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Ok, but what about my example of a government agency leasing an office in a multistory office building where a 30.06 was already posted before they started their lease? The government didn't require the sign be posted, and the sign is not on property leased by them, but it's on property retained by the lessor, but it's property that anyone entering the government-leased property must enter to get to the government-leased property (e.g., the lobby). If it's the sign is on private property, then how would suing the government help? This situation wouldn't be the egregious nose-thumbing that the 1' zoo example would be.

My post that includes "If a government leases property and takes any steps to require the owner to post 30.06 signs, then the government will be sued and government officials involved may be charged with a criminal offense related to conspiring to violate Texas law."

If the government simply leases in an already-posted private office building with no separate access to the government portion, then a CHL cannot carry. I've never seen such a situation, but it could exist.

Chas.

[mojo84]

I believe the government leases only the portion of the building in which they occupy and really has no control over the common areas. Therefore, the no sign statute would apply to the space the government occupies and would prohibit the government agency from posting a sign for that space.

I also agree with Charles that the government cannot require the building owner to post the building with a no gun sign.

[clarionite]

I'll go by San Antonio Airport September 2nd.

Still posted. Do they selectively follow only the laws they like?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[ScottDLS]

A question for the learned masses.
First, let me say - I've forwarded this question to both our city attorney and TML. TML just sent it back and said ask the AG. The city attorney will answer, eventually, maybe, hopefully. .

Is a 30.07 /30.06 sign required at a meeting that falls under the open meeting act, or is it optional?

Thus far we've gotten along just fine without 30.06, and have never seen a handgun (I guess concealed really does mean concealed - someone should alert the press).

I know about the ubiquitous (i) in 46.035 for non - applicability if it's not posted.

Is there anything that requires such meetings be posted elsewhere in the massive dead forest that is TPC?

TPC doesn't require the meetings to be posted, but allows 30.06 to be effective for meetings. So far as I can see nothing REQUIRES a 30.07 either, though I suspect one will be posted as soon as someone shows up to a meeting OC'ing .

[stars200]

I was not sure which section to post this article I saw this morning. This looked as good as any. Talk about a misinformed one sided article.

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/why-di ... es-7937451

[locke_n_load]

I was not sure which section to post this article I saw this morning. This looked as good as any. Talk about a misinformed one sided article.

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/why-di ... es-7937451

"...it's clear that Walker's success at shutting down the Houston Zoo's gun ban has opened the floodgates for gun rights advocates across Texas, — and they're facing much more pushback than Walker ever did from the Houston Zoo."

The Houston Zoo was clearly in violation, and would have cost the city thousands of dollars per day to keep the signs up. The Dallas Zoo with all it's claims throws a little bit more smoke into the mix, but they will come down as well, I believe.
The Houston Zoo having it's signs removed opened no flood gates - SB273, which simply gave the old law some teeth, did that, and it's a good thing. Keep those subdistricts of the state in line and in compliance with state law.

I am wondering what kind of time frame the AG is trying to make decisions on these complaints? It's been a couple of months already. I would think it would take a month tops to nail the lids on these coffins.

[Glockster]

I just read elsewhere that as of two days ago, the 30.06 signs are supposedly back up at the Houston Zoo!

[Waco1959]

I have friend that has ended up in the McLennan County Jail on Hwy 6 and I went to visit him. Visits are done from a video center further down Hwy 6 rather that at the jail. According to MCAD, the property is owned by McLennan County. There are NO inmates in the video facility and the property is an unfenced building and parking lot.

There are signs as you enter the lot stating it is illegal to posses a firearm, even concealed, on the property. Since this is NOT a secure facility and isn't connected to the jail (separate lot, other property in between) would this be legal or something that should be reported? Would it be classed as a secure facility as currently interpreted under law in Texas?

Any opinions?

[MeMelYup]

I have friend that has ended up in the McLennan County Jail on Hwy 6 and I went to visit him. Visits are done from a video center further down Hwy 6 rather that at the jail. According to MCAD, the property is owned by McLennan County. There are NO inmates in the video facility and the property is an unfenced building and parking lot.

There are signs as you enter the lot stating it is illegal to posses a firearm, even concealed, on the property. Since this is NOT a secure facility and isn't connected to the jail (separate lot, other property in between) would this be legal or something that should be reported? Would it be classed as a secure facility as currently interpreted under law in Texas?

Any opinions?

It was an inmate of the McClennan County jail that you went to visit? I would think the visitation center would be considered as part of the jail.

[JP171]

I have friend that has ended up in the McLennan County Jail on Hwy 6 and I went to visit him. Visits are done from a video center further down Hwy 6 rather that at the jail. According to MCAD, the property is owned by McLennan County. There are NO inmates in the video facility and the property is an unfenced building and parking lot.

There are signs as you enter the lot stating it is illegal to posses a firearm, even concealed, on the property. Since this is NOT a secure facility and isn't connected to the jail (separate lot, other property in between) would this be legal or something that should be reported? Would it be classed as a secure facility as currently interpreted under law in Texas?

Any opinions?

It was an inmate of the McClennan County jail that you went to visit? I would think the visitation center would be considered as part of the jail.

you did read the part in red right??? it should NOT be posted and should be reported!

[KC5AV]

http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/ne ... n-new-law/

Harrison county commissioners court to meet tomorrow morning for a workshop on the new open carry law.

"To have a workshop is important so everybody can air their concerns and we come to a consensus as to how we will apply and follow state law," he added. "We intend to follow the law, the intent of the legislature.

"As a court and a county, we will follow the law," Taylor stressed.

Following the workshop, the court will take action regarding Texas Penal Code Section 46.03 and posting of signs at county courthouses pursuant to Texas Penal Code Section 30.06 and other sections.

This article has a very good description of §30.06, and absolutely no mention of §30.07. I'm not surprised.