Are we actually still in violation of 30.06 at gun shows?

[HotLeadSolutions]

Ok..Heres the question:

We all know the wording on a 30.06 waning:

"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."


You check your firearm at the door, get your zip tie, and then place your weapon back in the box, backpack etc... (at which time it becomes concealed) and walk in....Are you in violation of 30.06? I would say...if you go by the letter of the law...YES.

If this is the caes...(which I think it is (IANAL)...But my wife is ) is this something we could use to convince gunshow promoters to not post 30.06 at shows? They are alienating the scores of CHL holders in this state.

[jamisjockey]

Interesting dilemma. Firstly, since most of these events are held on city or government owned property, they are posted improperly to begin with.
TPC 30.06

(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.

Second, that raises another question. According to TPC 46.0035
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

We've gone around and around on this forum before about disarming in public. Most seem to agree it violates 46.035
However, at many of the gun shows, there are police officers doing the diarming.

GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the
officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the
officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual.

It could also be argued that asking a CHL holder to disarm at a gun show held on public property (IE, city owned convention center, like the Brown Center here in Houston) is not lawful, since the convention centers are illegally posted.

The whole thing is a tangled web of wrong. IMHO, the cities should be smacked across the face for allowing gun shows to improperly post 30.06 signs. And the chain of stupid hurts. You're telling me to disarm, when I could still walk right in, snip off the stupid zip tie, buy magazines and ammo, and have a functioning weapon within minutes?

Personally, I think I'm done giving my money to gun shows until they remove the 30.06 signs. I can walk right into any gun shop, walmart, or sporting goods store and buy most of the same junk they sell, not disarm, not deal with the crowds, parking, and save $8 in admission.

[Pyrat]

Has a class action suit ever been considered?

[HotLeadSolutions]

So then by the letter of the law....Through the posting of a 30.06 and through enforcement of TPC 46.0035 a CHL holder can not legally even bring a handgun to a gun show? I have read through the statues and can not find any defenses to either of these statutes. There is a defense if you have a handgun at a gun show and NO CHL..

Section 46.02 (unlawfully carrying a weapon) does not apply to a person who:

(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence or motor vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

(if a gunshow could be considered a "sporting activity")

Does anyone else see this as the case?

[AEA]

I used to go to most all of them until they started doing this. Now I only on to one a year when my son visits from Canada. They don't have anything like a gunshow up there and he enjoys going.

Just thinking. ..... Now he is a police officer. I guess I could let him carry my gun loaded and not checked! Just flash the badge! (pun intended)

[Charles L. Cotton]

This is an interesting question. Focusing solely on the TPC §30.06 issue without regard to the property owner (private v. government), then once you are given permission to enter with your unloaded and secured handgun, then you do not violate TPC §30.06. Remember, the first statutory element of trespass is that you enter "property of another without effective consent." TPC §30.06(a). Once you are cleared to enter after showing your gun is unloaded, you have "effective consent" to enter. After this point, however, it gets interesting.

Once you are given permission to enter, you do not violate TPC §30.06 by doing so and you can only be in violation of the Code by "remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart." TPC §30.06(a)(2)(B). TPC §30.06 is an all or nothing statute; you either can't enter the property with a handgun or you can. It doesn't give the property owner authority to set requirements for entry to or remaining on the property. So once you enter with an unloaded gun, do you violate TPC §30.06 by going to the restroom, removing the Ty-rap and reloading? In my view, there is no violation because you haven't refused an order to leave. The counter argument is going to be that you were put on notice that loaded handguns are prohibited, but TPC §30.06 does not distinguish between loaded and unloaded, secured and unsecured. It's all or nothing.

Please don't think I'm suggesting or recommending that you violate the gun show promoters wishes and load up in the restroom. This is purely an academic discussion of the issue. As discussed in other threads, property owners won't rent their halls to gun show promoters unless they get insurance and name the property owner as an additional insured. Most if not all insurance companies won't issue policies to a promoter who does not prohibit loaded firearms and take steps to enforce that prohibition.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Has a class action suit ever been considered?

On what legal ground?

Chas.

[jamisjockey]

Charles,

Since most gun shows seem to occur at City, County, or State run facilities, what are your thoughts on the applicability of 30.06 sub section (e)?
Here in the Houston area, the GRB Convention center is owned and operated by the city of Houston.
Since it is city property, private property rights do not apply.

If subsection (e) applies, would it be legal for a LEO to ask people entering the building to disarm?

[PvilleStang]

Playing Devil's advocate here: They do have the option of refusing entry, correct? Can this come down to the fact that they are essentially leasing space from the city for a day, and could be considered the tenants of said building? These shows are run under one company, which sells vendor space to the vendors, so in essence, they do have a right to deny business in general to anyone.

I would like to hear how that would be interpreted in the eyes of the law.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Playing Devil's advocate here: They do have the option of refusing entry, correct? Can this come down to the fact that they are essentially leasing space from the city for a day, and could be considered the tenants of said building? These shows are run under one company, which sells vendor space to the vendors, so in essence, they do have a right to deny business in general to anyone.

I would like to hear how that would be interpreted in the eyes of the law.

This is the argument made by certain city officials; i.e. that people who lease their property for events are in control of the property and since they are not governmental agencies, they can enforce 30.06 signs. There is no case law on point, but this argument fails because it focuses on who is in control of the property, while the Penal Code focuses on who owns the property. (See below.)

When a person or entity leases or rents real property, they assume some but not all of the rights and duties of the property's owner. How much depends both upon the law and the terms of the lease/rental contract. One thing is clear, the property owner cannot convey to the tenant greater rights the property owner possesses in terms of legal use of the property. For example, if I lease real estate across from a school, I cannot open a bar or sexually oriented business in violation of a city ordinance. If I rent my home to someone, the renter cannot open a commercial business in violation of the City of Friendswood zoning laws.

So it is with gun shows on government owned property. The exception in TPC §30.06(e) expressly applies to "property . . . owned or leased by a governmental entity." A rental or lease contract cannot change the law as it applies to real estate owned by the government. The only way to remove this restriction is for the government to sell the property to a private person or entity.

Note also that if private property is leased by a governmental entity, the property can no longer be posted with an enforceable 30.06 sign. Why? Because we wanted to make sure the governmental entities couldn't skirt the provisions of then-newly created TPC 30.06 by leasing rather than buying land.

Chas.

(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.

[ScottDLS]

Playing Devil's advocate here: They do have the option of refusing entry, correct? Can this come down to the fact that they are essentially leasing space from the city for a day, and could be considered the tenants of said building? These shows are run under one company, which sells vendor space to the vendors, so in essence, they do have a right to deny business in general to anyone.

I would like to hear how that would be interpreted in the eyes of the law.

Sure they can deny you entry...they just don't have the ability to use a criminal sanction to back it up (on government owned property) if the reason for denying your entry was CHL. They could make up another reason to ask you to leave.

I don't care what the event organizers or their insurance companies' intent is...The intent of our elected legislators was that CHL not (generally) be banned on government (the "people's") property.

The best way to keep it safe at these events is for your loaded CHL carry gun to stay concealed about your person. If you intend on pulling a gun out or showing it around or generally messing with it, then get it zip tied and carry it encased under the "sporting activity" non-applicability in 46.15. If you want to try out holsters, then don't do it with your carry gun.

While I consider the concern of CHL's pulling out loaded carry guns and waving them about at gun shows to be overblown, I believe it would be prosecutable under 46.035 for intentional failure to conceal.

My argument is that the zip tied guns that you're showing, or trading, or trying holsters for, are not being carried under CHL and presumably are non-applicable to UCW under 46.15, because they are suitable (i.e. zip tied & empty) for the "sporting activity" of a gun show. The loaded concealed gun you're carrying is using the authority of your CHL, and so you better not display it.

[Tamie]

There is no difference in 30.06 between a loaded handgun concealed in a holster, and an unloaded NIB handgun concealed "in box" after purchase.

[preacher]

My wife and I looked into sponsoring a gun show in SE Texas. In our research on the requirements that were necessary to stay within the law we were told (dont remember by who, but think it was the BATFE) that ALL guns had to be unloaded. So don't blame the show promoters for making you "disarm" before you enter the gun shows. Their hands are tied too.

[cbr600]

My wife and I looked into sponsoring a gun show in SE Texas. In our research on the requirements that were necessary to stay within the law we were told (dont remember by who, but think it was the BATFE) that ALL guns had to be unloaded. So don't blame the show promoters for making you "disarm" before you enter the gun shows. Their hands are tied too.

Cite the law please. Otherwise, I think somebody was lying to you.

[Pyrat]

Has a class action suit ever been considered?

On what legal ground?

Chas.

Charles,

Since most gun shows seem to occur at City, County, or State run facilities, what are your thoughts on the applicability of 30.06 sub section (e)?
Here in the Houston area, the GRB Convention center is owned and operated by the city of Houston.
Since it is city property, private property rights do not apply.

If subsection (e) applies, would it be legal for a LEO to ask people entering the building to disarm?

Charles, I was thinking of the recent gun show in Allen and as Jamisjocky has stated, is not a LEO actually in violation of the law by enforcing no carry on these non-privately owned properties, and would this not mean the officer is not in the lawful execution of his/her duties? If this were the case, would a class action suit, basically stopping the illegal action under cover of authority by officers not be justifiable?