Frisco Library/City Hall posted

[Tahoe132]

Hello All,

The other day I went to the Frisco Library for the first time. Apparently it shares a building with the City Hall, and is 30.06 posted. I was just wondering if anyone can confirm this or not if it is valid, I saw a posting on the 30.06 forum and it says Yes, but I think there is some confusion. The sign on the front door is way to the right, and is not visible unless you are pretty much looking for it. The sign in the back cannot be missed.

Look closely at the wording.......





If these are not valid, which I think they are not, isn't there someone that can be contacted to have them removed?

[The Annoyed Man]

Unless there's a courtroom or something in there, I don't think they can legally post those signs.... ...government owned buildings, and all that.

[Keith B]

Actually, they can post a government meeting per the statutes, so they might be valid. However, they don't meet the exact verbiage for the 30.06 sign, so there is a gray area. I personally would steer clear of a council meeting or other formally called meeting (board meetings, etc.) but carry otherwise (unless there is a court in there too.)

[i8godzilla]

There is nothing wrong with those signs. Now, they are not valid 30.06 signs. However, they are actually correct. They state you cannot attend a government meeting with your concealed handgun.

30.06 (English)
"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

[RPB]

.

Sign or no sign, it's a true statement.
Texas Penal Code 46.035 section C
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity.

So, you can't carry there at the meetin's

If, however, you aren't AT the meetin', nor attending it ... but elsewhere in the building (say if City Council is in Council Chambers, and you are not ...)

However, are any OFFICES UTILIZED BY the municipal court in one of those buildings? Cashier.Secretary/Clerk etc etc?

Old court cases/records boxed up stored in an office UTILIZED BY a Court for Storage ??????

46.03 (3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;


I'd think that the Library should probably be OK if they don't meet there.
City Hall, I'd have to visit or know more about to form my layman's opinion.

[Warhammer]

However, Texas PC 46.035 subsection (i) states:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

So subsection (c), which talks about government meetings, does not apply without proper 30.06 notice.

And section 30.06 explicitly states that:

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Since the signs in the pics display different language than that which is required by 30.06, they are invalid, and written notice has not been given.

Beyond that, 30.06 also states:

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

So even if they HAD gotten the 30.06 signs right, and even if it IS for a government meeting, the signs would be inapplicable because the property is owned or leased by the city.

[RPB]

hmmmm that's a real headscratcher

But personally, I'd rather see those than what Burnet has .... a sign simply saying "Municipal Offices" walk in and there's the "Utility Bill Payment" window, and while standing there getting a receipt for my utility bill, I find out later that Court is in session 2 doors down the hall, and all these "extra people" aren't waiting to pay bills. (Had just moved here; didn't even know there was a Court there, but apparently there are 4 Courts in various places in town, only 2 are with "Court" signs. (Only happened once, but now I don't carry there)

[blue]

There ARE a few cities with a "Common Building" for everything -courts, library, water dept. etc.
Seems like 30.06 should ONLY apply to the court and court offices themselves directly - EXACTLY the same as if each room was a separate building.

Paying a water bill or going to the library is NOT a "Crime" with separate buildings, AND with Texas STATE Preemption, should be the same, common roof or not.

HOWEVER!!! locals seem to be able to ignore the laws if they wish to, with NO punishment. So best to be cautious even tho we follow the laws. (Dallas/State Fair, Frisco etc.)

IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE THE STATE PUT SOME REAL TEETH INTO THE LAW TO PROTECT CHLers FROM SOME CITIES AND CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO IGNORE THE LAW.


...............................................................
Again, Constitutional Carry = Best solution!






(Make note that: overall we have EXCELLENT coverage/control on the 51% signs, the TABC seem to really get things done, AND have the teeth to see that its done right and rapidly (or else!!!)). Proof it can be done.

[5thGenTexan]

If'n it was me I'd read that there sign as No Guns in Government Meetings, and just steer clear of any courts or judges offices on the premisis.

[C-dub]

So even if they HAD gotten the 30.06 signs right, and even if it IS for a government meeting, the signs would be inapplicable because the property is owned or leased by the city.

I was with you up until this statement. Where else are governmental meetings held, but government property? However, I think the actual meeting room is the only thing off limits and not the entire building.

My only question is what constitutes a "meeting?" Does two people getting together qualify as a meeting that cold prohibit a CHL from carrying? Supposing they would also properly post a 30.06 sign.

[Warhammer]

So even if they HAD gotten the 30.06 signs right, and even if it IS for a government meeting, the signs would be inapplicable because the property is owned or leased by the city.

I was with you up until this statement. Where else are governmental meetings held, but government property? However, I think the actual meeting room is the only thing off limits and not the entire building.

My only question is what constitutes a "meeting?" Does two people getting together qualify as a meeting that cold prohibit a CHL from carrying? Supposing they would also properly post a 30.06 sign.

Section 30.06 explicitly states that the entire section is not applicable to buildings owned or leased by a goverment. It does not differentiate individual rooms within said buildings. Now, if the meeting was being held at the VFW, or at a church, or a convention center, or a hotel auditorium, or a performance hall, or a home... then a correct 30.06 sign would bar a CHL from carrying in the meeting.

[RPB]

So even if they HAD gotten the 30.06 signs right, and even if it IS for a government meeting, the signs would be inapplicable because the property is owned or leased by the city.

I was with you up until this statement. Where else are governmental meetings held, but government property? However, I think the actual meeting room is the only thing off limits and not the entire building.

My only question is what constitutes a "meeting?" Does two people getting together qualify as a meeting that cold prohibit a CHL from carrying? Supposing they would also properly post a 30.06 sign.

Well, in Burnet: (At the airport, in a hanger?) (City hall was too small)
Council Chambers - 2402 S. Water (Hwy. 281 South) in the Highland Lakes Squadron building.
http://www.highlandlakessquadron.com/HLS1/Contact.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

City Hall - 1001 Buchanan Drive, Suite 4 (Hwy. 29 West)


OK, it's still city property, but I just had to laugh.
http://www.cityofburnet.com/airport/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Droshi]

Confusing indeed, I'd probably steer clear.

[sjfcontrol]

So even if they HAD gotten the 30.06 signs right, and even if it IS for a government meeting, the signs would be inapplicable because the property is owned or leased by the city.

I was with you up until this statement. Where else are governmental meetings held, but government property? However, I think the actual meeting room is the only thing off limits and not the entire building.

My only question is what constitutes a "meeting?" Does two people getting together qualify as a meeting that cold prohibit a CHL from carrying? Supposing they would also properly post a 30.06 sign.

Section 30.06 explicitly states that the entire section is not applicable to buildings owned or leased by a goverment. It does not differentiate individual rooms within said buildings. Now, if the meeting was being held at the VFW, or at a church, or a convention center, or a hotel auditorium, or a performance hall, or a home... then a correct 30.06 sign would bar a CHL from carrying in the meeting.

I believe you have that backwards. PC30.06(e) states that it is an exception to this section (30.06) that the property is owned or leased by a govt. entity -- and is not otherwise prohibited under 46.03 or 46.035.

It is section 46.035(c) that state a license holder commits an offense by carrying a gun at a meeting of a govt. entity. So that restriction (not carrying at a govt. meeting) is still valid.

Then 46.035(i) further modified THAT by stating that (c) does not apply if 30.06 effective notice was not given.

So, ultimately, all this boils down to NOT being able to carry at a govt. meeting if proper 30.06 notice is given, EVEN ON GOVT. OWNED OR LEASED PROPERTY.

Also, the prohibition against carrying at a govt. meeting is for carrying "...at any meeting...", NOT carrying in the premises where the meeting is taking place. So, you can carry in the building where it's taking place, just not in the ROOM where it's taking place.

[Keith B]

30.06 IS valid on a government building under 46.035(c) & (i), so a properly worded 30.06 sign would be valid. And, even though this one is not valid, I would not want to push it.

Now, the still gray area is what really constitutes a government meeting. Is it only formally called meetings with agendas (like council, planning and zoning, etc.) or does it apply to any time you meet with a government employee (paying your tax bill, etc.)? I feel the intent was the former and that is what I personally hold to.