Texas State Fair Carry Rules

[srothstein]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble when it comes to AG Paxton on this, but it is political showboating and will not go anywhere. And he knows this and did this for the votes only.

If you read his official opinion (Opinion KP0108 here) it explains that the city is not responsible for the posting of the signs by a non-profit leasing the land, and that the posted signs are not illegal. It does point out that the property is still excepted from the violation under 30.06/30.07, so the signs are unenforceable.

A possible legal question that MIGHT change my opinion of Paxton on this is if the State Fair organization pays the city for the use of the land (leases the land from the city) or if they are contracted by the city to run the fair (as a contract employee/agent of the city). An agent of the city, even a contracted one, is still governed by the city and it means the city is responsible for the signs. A lessor of the property means the city is not responsible.

[Grayling813]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble when it comes to AG Paxton on this, but it is political showboating and will not go anywhere. And he knows this and did this for the votes only.

If you read his official opinion (Opinion KP0108 here) it explains that the city is not responsible for the posting of the signs by a non-profit leasing the land, and that the posted signs are not illegal. It does point out that the property is still excepted from the violation under 30.06/30.07, so the signs are unenforceable.

A possible legal question that MIGHT change my opinion of Paxton on this is if the State Fair organization pays the city for the use of the land (leases the land from the city) or if they are contracted by the city to run the fair (as a contract employee/agent of the city). An agent of the city, even a contracted one, is still governed by the city and it means the city is responsible for the signs. A lessor of the property means the city is not responsible.

According to the letter that Paxton sent to City of Dallas, the SFOT is contracted by the city to operate the fair. And he considered KP-0108 in issuing the letter to City of Dallas.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/si ... 0Final.pdf

Through this lease agreement, the City of Dallas authorizes the State Fair of Texas to take control
of the functions of operating the public city park, various city buildings, walkways and sidewalks
contained within the 277 acres over a 24-day period.

To the extent that the State Fair of Texas, as a nonprofit organization, may have considered Texas
Attorney General Opinion KP-0108 (dated August 9, 2016), in making its decision to exclude
license holders from the entirety of the 277-acre Fair Park and all of its buildings, walkways and
sidewalks, such reliance was misplaced in regard to the 277-acre Fair Park.

The big question is: will the Attorney General's office seek judgement to prevent the new policy in time for it to actually matter? And, of course, whether a judge will agree with the City or the AG's office.

[philip964]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble when it comes to AG Paxton on this, but it is political showboating and will not go anywhere. And he knows this and did this for the votes only.

If you read his official opinion (Opinion KP0108 here) it explains that the city is not responsible for the posting of the signs by a non-profit leasing the land, and that the posted signs are not illegal. It does point out that the property is still excepted from the violation under 30.06/30.07, so the signs are unenforceable.

A possible legal question that MIGHT change my opinion of Paxton on this is if the State Fair organization pays the city for the use of the land (leases the land from the city) or if they are contracted by the city to run the fair (as a contract employee/agent of the city). An agent of the city, even a contracted one, is still governed by the city and it means the city is responsible for the signs. A lessor of the property means the city is not responsible.

According to the letter that Paxton sent to City of Dallas, the SFOT is contracted by the city to operate the fair. And he considered KP-0108 in issuing the letter to City of Dallas.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/si ... 0Final.pdf

Through this lease agreement, the City of Dallas authorizes the State Fair of Texas to take control
of the functions of operating the public city park, various city buildings, walkways and sidewalks
contained within the 277 acres over a 24-day period.

To the extent that the State Fair of Texas, as a nonprofit organization, may have considered Texas
Attorney General Opinion KP-0108 (dated August 9, 2016), in making its decision to exclude
license holders from the entirety of the 277-acre Fair Park and all of its buildings, walkways and
sidewalks, such reliance was misplaced in regard to the 277-acre Fair Park.

The big question is: will the Attorney General's office seek judgement to prevent the new policy in time for it to actually matter? And, of course, whether a judge will agree with the City or the AG's office.

Well it made the Houston news, I think this is really all about Ken running for US Attorney General for Trump. But awesome anyway.

[carlson1]

The State Fair’s Respomse,

Thank you for your inquiry. The State Fair of Texas is-and always has been—a private entity. As a private, not-for-profit organization, the State Fair of Texas leases property from the City of Dallas for its event. The State Fair is not a government entity nor is it controlled or supported by a government
entity.

The State Fair of Texas has long been, and continues to be, a strong supporter of the rights of responsible gun owning Texans. For that reason, the Fair has long allowed State Fair attendees with a valid Texas License to Carry (LTC or fka, CHL (concealed handgun license)) to carry their handguns while at the Fair (except for locations prohibited by law). After carefully considering the issue and reviewing the policies of similar Texas events, the State Fair has decided to prohibit open and concealed carry at the fairgrounds. This decision is consistent with an August 9, 2016 opinion letter issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in which the Attorney General confirmed that the law which prohibits the government from banning handguns from most government property (Texas Government Code 411.209) applies only to bans implemented by the government and does not override the rights of a private entity that happens to operate on property leased from the government. In that situation, the private entity is no different than any other business operating on private property.

We know that this is an important issue for many Texans, and that the Fair's decision may disappoint potential fairgoers who regularly and responsibly practice License to Carry or Constitutional Carry. However, the Fair strongly believes that this is the right decision moving forward to ensure a safe environment and family-friendly atmosphere. The State Fair of Texas works with DPD, DFR, DART Police, DISD Police, regional, state, and federal partners as well as private security partners to help keep fairgoers, employees, and vendors safe. While each of these entities focus on ensuring a safe and family-friendly environment at the State Fair of Texas, we also ask that everyone remain "Fair Aware." If you see something that doesn't look right on the fairgrounds, please say something to a uniformed police officer or State Fair Safety Team member.
Let's all do our part to keep the State Fair safe.

Thank you,

Your Tex Team Member

[Boxerrider]

It seems to me that they are reading the parts of Paxton's opinion they want, instead of the opinion in its entirety.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/si ... kp0108.pdf

I have greatly simplified things, so somebody please correct me if I'm missing something here;

• If a government entity posts a 30.06 sign on government property where carry is not otherwise prohibited, then that government entity may be fined for violating the law.

• If a private entity leases government property where carry is not otherwise prohibited and posts a 30.06 sign, then that private entity may not be fined for violating the law.

• The 30.06 posting, however, remains unenforceable.

So, Paxton has essentially advised the State Fair that if an LTC holder is refused entry and arrested for trespass (assuming no "other" offense), the court would likely determine them to be not guilty. Wouldn't this leave the State Fair open to civil liability?

While I don't intend to attend the State Fair either way, I have been to other events where the choices are either agree to forfeit your civil rights or take a ride and pay for a court battle. That ride is meaningless to a career criminal, and it is a major life upset to a person with a job and a family.

[C-dub]

Is my memory failing me or wasn't there a case a few years ago that explained a third can post signs prohibiting licensees from carrying, but that they were unenforceable? It might have been the Fort Worth Zoo, but I'm not sure.

The State Fair may know that and are counting on no one calling their bluff.

I haven't been to the fair in years and had not planned on going this year. I still don't.

[srothstein]

According to the letter that Paxton sent to City of Dallas, the SFOT is contracted by the city to operate the fair. And he considered KP-0108 in issuing the letter to City of Dallas.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/si ... 0Final.pdf

Through this lease agreement, the City of Dallas authorizes the State Fair of Texas to take control
of the functions of operating the public city park, various city buildings, walkways and sidewalks
contained within the 277 acres over a 24-day period.

To the extent that the State Fair of Texas, as a nonprofit organization, may have considered Texas
Attorney General Opinion KP-0108 (dated August 9, 2016), in making its decision to exclude
license holders from the entirety of the 277-acre Fair Park and all of its buildings, walkways and
sidewalks, such reliance was misplaced in regard to the 277-acre Fair Park.

The big question is: will the Attorney General's office seek judgement to prevent the new policy in time for it to actually matter? And, of course, whether a judge will agree with the City or the AG's office.

The problem I see is that the letter itself, as quoted above, says it is a lease agreement. The lease authorizes the State Fair to take control of the functions of the operation of the property. The way I read this, and not being a lawyer I could be wrong, this is the same as my apartment lease which authorizes me to take control of my apartment. I am not an agent of the complex and I do not see the State Fair as an agent of the city. If it were a contract to run the fair for the city, it would require the State Fair to perform certain actions, such as operating the property and running the fair. That would make them an agent of the city and then they could not post signs.

I do not see any difference between the fairgrounds situation and the offices leased in Stephenville in the opinion. I think Paxton also saw it this way, though I could be wrong and the court saw it this way, in the case of the Fort Worth Zoo.

But i do agree that how far Paxton takes it and when is a major question we need to keep an eye on.

[The Annoyed Man]

Armed Attorneys has a review and opinion of the matter.

[Grayling813]

Armed Attorneys has a review and opinion of the matter.

The best part of the video is where they point out the obvious failures of the City of Dallas and the State Fair of Texas organization to identify exactly how a person without a license to carry entered the fair, and decided that banning good guys from carrying was the answer.
Not surprising given that most likely many of the people involved are liberals.

On another note of interest the shooter’s bond was reduced from $1.5 million to $100,000 in January this year. So, if he can make the $10k bond he’ll probably be able to attend the fair.

[Caliber]

Here's the deal: The State Fair probably can't exclude gun carriers pursuant to Texas gun laws. However, they can trespass you and they don't need a reason. I don't believe the property is "public property" since is leased by a non-governmental entity.

[anygunanywhere]

Here's the deal: The State Fair probably can't exclude gun carriers pursuant to Texas gun laws. However, they can trespass you and they don't need a reason. I don't believe the property is "public property" since is leased by a non-governmental entity.

You are probably correct.

I’m not picking at nits in your statement but am thinking about the overall logic.

If the state fair cannot legally exclude gun carriers from entering then why is it possible to legally trespass them out? Does not make sense! Citizens legally exercising their RKBA where they are legally allowed to be and not doing anything to meet the standards of breaking any law should be allowed entry and th fair should not be able to do anything to prevent it.

[chasfm11]

Here's the deal: The State Fair probably can't exclude gun carriers pursuant to Texas gun laws. However, they can trespass you and they don't need a reason. I don't believe the property is "public property" since is leased by a non-governmental entity.

You are probably correct.

I’m not picking at nits in your statement but am thinking about the overall logic.

If the state fair cannot legally exclude gun carriers from entering then why is it possible to legally trespass them out? Does not make sense! Citizens legally exercising their RKBA where they are legally allowed to be and not doing anything to meet the standards of breaking any law should be allowed entry and th fair should not be able to do anything to prevent it.

How much of the legal and regulatory system in the State of Texas changes in regard to a property when someone leases it from a governmental entity? The reason that I ask is an incident with the City of Lewisville a few years ago when they fenced off the downtown area and turned it over to a "vendor" who installed wand security guards at the entrances. Or the City of Grapevine who posted 30.06 signs at the entrances to their fenced off downtown events. This is not the first time for this sort of thing and, in my mind at least, the results are mixed on the outcomes.

[Grayling813]

Here's the deal: The State Fair probably can't exclude gun carriers pursuant to Texas gun laws. However, they can trespass you and they don't need a reason. I don't believe the property is "public property" since is leased by a non-governmental entity.

You are probably correct.

I’m not picking at nits in your statement but am thinking about the overall logic.

If the state fair cannot legally exclude gun carriers from entering then why is it possible to legally trespass them out? Does not make sense! Citizens legally exercising their RKBA where they are legally allowed to be and not doing anything to meet the standards of breaking any law should be allowed entry and th fair should not be able to do anything to prevent it.

How much of the legal and regulatory system in the State of Texas changes in regard to a property when someone leases it from a governmental entity? The reason that I ask is an incident with the City of Lewisville a few years ago when they fenced off the downtown area and turned it over to a "vendor" who installed wand security guards at the entrances. Or the City of Grapevine who posted 30.06 signs at the entrances to their fenced off downtown events. This is not the first time for this sort of thing and, in my mind at least, the results are mixed on the outcomes.

All because low-IQ, non-law abiding people sneak guns into place and then open fire in a crowd. The controllers default position is always to ban law abiding citizens from exercising their God-given rights, because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to address the real issues.

[C-dub]

According to the letter that Paxton sent to City of Dallas, the SFOT is contracted by the city to operate the fair. And he considered KP-0108 in issuing the letter to City of Dallas.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/si ... 0Final.pdf

Through this lease agreement, the City of Dallas authorizes the State Fair of Texas to take control
of the functions of operating the public city park, various city buildings, walkways and sidewalks
contained within the 277 acres over a 24-day period.

To the extent that the State Fair of Texas, as a nonprofit organization, may have considered Texas
Attorney General Opinion KP-0108 (dated August 9, 2016), in making its decision to exclude
license holders from the entirety of the 277-acre Fair Park and all of its buildings, walkways and
sidewalks, such reliance was misplaced in regard to the 277-acre Fair Park.

The big question is: will the Attorney General's office seek judgement to prevent the new policy in time for it to actually matter? And, of course, whether a judge will agree with the City or the AG's office.

The problem I see is that the letter itself, as quoted above, says it is a lease agreement. The lease authorizes the State Fair to take control of the functions of the operation of the property. The way I read this, and not being a lawyer I could be wrong, this is the same as my apartment lease which authorizes me to take control of my apartment. I am not an agent of the complex and I do not see the State Fair as an agent of the city. If it were a contract to run the fair for the city, it would require the State Fair to perform certain actions, such as operating the property and running the fair. That would make them an agent of the city and then they could not post signs.

I do not see any difference between the fairgrounds situation and the offices leased in Stephenville in the opinion. I think Paxton also saw it this way, though I could be wrong and the court saw it this way, in the case of the Fort Worth Zoo.

But i do agree that how far Paxton takes it and when is a major question we need to keep an eye on.

I had a coworker make the point about someone leasing an apartment being in control and being able to exclude others from carrying in their apartment. That isn't exactly the same point you're making here, but very similar. I think the differences are that an apartment is usually not on government owned property and the lease doesn't give the leaser total control. They still have to abide by the terms of the lease and even if something is not stated as being prohibited in the lease that doesn't mean they can perform other illegal acts with immunity.

Just my also not a lawyer argument.

[carlson1]

If the gun owners in Texas would avoid the Fair this year it would make a little dent in their profits. That wiill be the one and only thing that gets their attention. The problem being will be folks will go unarmed. Just like they loaded the train cars to be executed. Sheep are not real smart animals.

Maybe the freedom caucus will fix this next year.