Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

[puma guy]

Who ever Keith Hardcastle is and what position he may holds GCWDA I seriously doubt he contacted the AG and if he did and the AG said it was legal to post the AG would be ignoring the law since Gulf Coast is a political subdivision as stated in their annual reports.
Their General Counsel is Olson and Olson

Quoted from GCWDA 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (revised 02/13/2013)
Profile of the Authority
The Authority was created in 1969 by the Texas Legislature as a political subdivision of the State of Texas and is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors. The Authority provides services to assist governments and industries in managing their pollution control needs. These services include the operation of waste treatment facilities; technical assistance and information programs; involvement in
community environmental projects; and pollution control and private activity bond financing of projects.


The Board has a very strange make up. A funeral director to a rice farmer in Beaumont even though there are no GCWDA facilities in Beaumont??? I saw only one member with environment background and many have been members very long time, Good old boy???? All are political appointees so you'd be wasting your time contacting any of them IMHO. I didn't see Hardcastle as Director of HR it was a woman named Rhea Hernandez reporting directly to the General Manager Ricky Clifton. This is per the latest (2012) CAFR so perhaps he replaced her.
Maybe we should inquire of the AG : Since I couldn't find an email for the AG I made an inquiry via his election website and requested a response mentioning the fact there are potentially 14000+ individuals interested in his answer.

[unicyclist]

I just got this back from the AG

This e-mail is in response to your public information request to the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”), received by the OAG on February 13, 2014. A copy of your request follows this e-mail.

The OAG has reviewed its files, and the OAG has no information responsive to your request.

I called GCWDA and asked to speak to their open records officer. What a fun call (no sarcasm). Ms Love is going to retire in a few days, and didn't care what she said anymore. To sum up the phone call...
"You must have a vendetta" (In response to my success with the city of Webster, Friendswood, and Galveston County.
"Just leave it in the car" (I love debating and I think she did to, which made this phone call fun.
"I wouldn't feel safe" (I had more fun with this)

She told me to email her with all of the details of our phone call, with quoted penal code, and she would personally look it up and get back to be before her last day.
She also asked if I talked with Keith Hardcastle about the AG returning my email. I told her that I believe he 1)Didn't do it, or 2)Asked the wrong question (if he could ban employees)

[puma guy]

I just got this back from the AG

This e-mail is in response to your public information request to the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”), received by the OAG on February 13, 2014. A copy of your request follows this e-mail.

The OAG has reviewed its files, and the OAG has no information responsive to your request.

I called GCWDA and asked to speak to their open records officer. What a fun call (no sarcasm). Ms Love is going to retire in a few days, and didn't care what she said anymore. To sum up the phone call...
"You must have a vendetta" (In response to my success with the city of Webster, Friendswood, and Galveston County.
"Just leave it in the car" (I love debating and I think she did to, which made this phone call fun.
"I wouldn't feel safe" (I had more fun with this)

She told me to email her with all of the details of our phone call, with quoted penal code, and she would personally look it up and get back to be before her last day.
She also asked if I talked with Keith Hardcastle about the AG returning my email. I told her that I believe he 1)Didn't do it, or 2)Asked the wrong question (if he could ban employees)

Sounds like you had a good time! I received no response, but since I went through the campaign website I'll let it go. Looking forward to hearing what she says in her email. Keep up the good work

[Smily]

I was at a cirque du soleil show last night. I can confirm the legal 30.06 signage at the cedar park center!
What legal recourse do we have to get the signs taken down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Park_Center" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Says its owned by the city.

[unicyclist]

!
What legal recourse do we have to get the signs taken down?

Says its owned by the city.

Virtually none.

If you read over my prior posts, you can see I have had pretty good success though.

Long story short, call the management office. Play stupid/polite. Do not mention the CHL outright, but ask if it is owned by the city.
(simplified) Once they say it is, tell them that according to the Texas Penal Code that is stated on the sign that they posted, a government entity can not post that sign.
Chances are you will be transferred to their attorney, where you quote PC 30.06, he says he will check it and get back to you. Chances are he won't if you don't keep on top of it.

I keep detailed records of all phone calls, to include date, time, and who I spoke with. I downloaded an app that lets me record phone calls. Using the phone log, I call them every 2 weeks to see if they have an update.

If worse comes to worse, you say accuse them of purposefully intimidating lawful gun owners and misleading the unknowing CHL (which is all true, just try to avoid attack wording until they say they are not going to remove it).

If that fails, message each person on the board or council that supervises that organization.

[cb1000rider]

I was at a cirque du soleil show last night. I can confirm the legal 30.06 signage at the cedar park center!
What legal recourse do we have to get the signs taken down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Park_Center" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Says its owned by the city.

That sign has been up since the Austin gun show. When the gun show went away, they just elevated the sign. I haven't seen the sign come down.
During the gun show, I politely asked (and recorded) CPPD about the sign - I asked them if the building was city owned (yes) and I told them that my really horrible CHL instructor had indicated that city owned buildings couldn't be posted like that. He waffled a bit, but told me that he wouldn't be making any "illegal" arrests on the issue, but he couldn't guarantee that someone else wouldn't. He also indicated that the sign was there due to prior troubles at guns shows regarding loaded handguns that were handled improperly.

I have not inquired with the city or city attorney's office on the issue... If you do, report back..

[Fibonacci]

The Kurth Library in Lufkin has text on the door prohibiting firearms and the text refers to section 30.05! It does not include the 30.06 language.

Is it even possible, by definition, to trespass on public property?

[unicyclist]

I just got this back from the AG

This e-mail is in response to your public information request to the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”), received by the OAG on February 13, 2014. A copy of your request follows this e-mail.

The OAG has reviewed its files, and the OAG has no information responsive to your request.

I called GCWDA and asked to speak to their open records officer. What a fun call (no sarcasm). Ms Love is going to retire in a few days, and didn't care what she said anymore. To sum up the phone call...
"You must have a vendetta" (In response to my success with the city of Webster, Friendswood, and Galveston County.
"Just leave it in the car" (I love debating and I think she did to, which made this phone call fun.
"I wouldn't feel safe" (I had more fun with this)

She told me to email her with all of the details of our phone call, with quoted penal code, and she would personally look it up and get back to be before her last day.
She also asked if I talked with Keith Hardcastle about the AG returning my email. I told her that I believe he 1)Didn't do it, or 2)Asked the wrong question (if he could ban employees)

Update:
She never called me back, no surprise really. I went to GCWDA in person to submit a open records request. I spoke with Kieth Hardcastle, and says there is no email record of his conversation with the AGO. He called the IG with his cell phone, does not know who he spoke with, but hey said he was allowed to post 30.06. He reiterated many times throughout our 30 minute conversation how there is no bigger supporter of the 2nd Amendment than him.

He admitted that there is not any records of his phone call/AG opinion. (I have the conversation audio recorded), and not sure where to go from here. I think I am going to contact my representatives, which have high NRA ratings, to see if they can do anything.
If my representatives can't do anything, my only option is lawyer up....Mr. Cotton, do you work for free?

[jbarn]

The Kurth Library in Lufkin has text on the door prohibiting firearms and the text refers to section 30.05! It does not include the 30.06 language.

Is it even possible, by definition, to trespass on public property?

Of course it is.

However, it is a defense under 30.05 if the reason for the prohibited entry was carry under a CHL

[Fibonacci]

The Kurth Library in Lufkin has text on the door prohibiting firearms and the text refers to section 30.05! It does not include the 30.06 language.

Is it even possible, by definition, to trespass on public property?

Of course it is.

However, it is a defense under 30.05 if the reason for the prohibited entry was carry under a CHL

"Of course it is."

It seems to me a lot less certain than you state. The first paragraph of 30.05 Criminal Trespass talks in specific language about being on the property of another. How can public property be property of another?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent ........

[jbarn]

The Kurth Library in Lufkin has text on the door prohibiting firearms and the text refers to section 30.05! It does not include the 30.06 language.

Is it even possible, by definition, to trespass on public property?

Of course it is.

However, it is a defense under 30.05 if the reason for the prohibited entry was carry under a CHL

"Of course it is."

It seems to me a lot less certain than you state. The first paragraph of 30.05 Criminal Trespass talks in specific language about being on the property of another. How can public property be property of another?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent ........

You don't own the public property. The courts have long interpreted that the governing bodies are in control of the property. This is long held.

[Scott Farkus]

Update:
She never called me back, no surprise really. I went to GCWDA in person to submit a open records request. I spoke with Kieth Hardcastle, and says there is no email record of his conversation with the AGO. He called the IG with his cell phone, does not know who he spoke with, but hey said he was allowed to post 30.06. He reiterated many times throughout our 30 minute conversation how there is no bigger supporter of the 2nd Amendment than him.

He admitted that there is not any records of his phone call/AG opinion. (I have the conversation audio recorded), and not sure where to go from here. I think I am going to contact my representatives, which have high NRA ratings, to see if they can do anything.
If my representatives can't do anything, my only option is lawyer up....Mr. Cotton, do you work for free?

What do expect a lawyer to do for you? The law simply makes the sign unenforceable on government owned or leased buildings; it doesn't prohibit it from being posted nor establish penalties upon those who do. afaik, it doesn't even give anybody such as the AG or a DA the power to even investigate an unenforceable posting.

I have no doubt that Mr. Hardcastle is either flat out lying to you or he did in fact speak with "someone" at the AG's office who gave him incorrect or incomplete information. Actually, if someone at the AG's office said he was "allowed" to post 30.06, they would not even technically be incorrect. The sign may not be enforceable, but it's not "disallowed" either.

You solve this the way Florida and other states do - by imposing monetary penalties that accrue daily upon the specific person within the agency that authorized the sign to be posted. Texas had a bill that would do this making its way through the Legislature last session but like other pro-CHL bills, it got squashed for various reasons. Your best bet is to contribute to Joe Strauss' opponent and/or convince your representative not to vote for him for speaker. And frankly I'm not sure Dan Patrick will be of any help in these matters either.

[puma guy]

The Kurth Library in Lufkin has text on the door prohibiting firearms and the text refers to section 30.05! It does not include the 30.06 language.

Is it even possible, by definition, to trespass on public property?

Of course it is.

However, it is a defense under 30.05 if the reason for the prohibited entry was carry under a CHL

"Of course it is."

It seems to me a lot less certain than you state. The first paragraph of 30.05 Criminal Trespass talks in specific language about being on the property of another. How can public property be property of another?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent ........

You don't own the public property. The courts have long interpreted that the governing bodies are in control of the property. This is long held.

You quote 30.05 as a defense to trespassing under 30.06, but since 30.06 was passed it seems to me that's moot. There is no trespass on government property for a CHL per 30.06 exceptions. That would be like having a law that says the maximum speed limit can be reduced to 30 mph along with some language that says it's a defense to prosecution,etc. But then subsequent statutes make an exception for that specific area that no longer allows the speed limit to be reduced. Someone decides to leave the 30 MPH sign up and you are cited for exceeding it. The new statute negates the need for any "defense to prosecution" originally set forth, since it's unenforceable per the new code. IANAL, but I doubt an attorney would use the language in 30.05 to defend a charge of trespass on government property that's a exception under 30.06, but rather would cite the exceptions in 30.06.
30.06. at allow e are originally specified at 30.06 making tand make it 40 mph. with

[jbarn]

The Kurth Library in Lufkin has text on the door prohibiting firearms and the text refers to section 30.05! It does not include the 30.06 language.

Is it even possible, by definition, to trespass on public property?

Of course it is.

However, it is a defense under 30.05 if the reason for the prohibited entry was carry under a CHL

"Of course it is."

It seems to me a lot less certain than you state. The first paragraph of 30.05 Criminal Trespass talks in specific language about being on the property of another. How can public property be property of another?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent ........

You don't own the public property. The courts have long interpreted that the governing bodies are in control of the property. This is long held.

You quote 30.05 as a defense to trespassing under 30.06, but since 30.06 was passed it seems to me that's moot. There is no trespass on government property for a CHL per 30.06 exceptions. That would be like having a law that says the maximum speed limit can be reduced to 30 mph along with some language that says it's a defense to prosecution,etc. But then subsequent statutes make an exception for that specific area that no longer allows the speed limit to be reduced. Someone decides to leave the 30 MPH sign up and you are cited for exceeding it. The new statute negates the need for any "defense to prosecution" originally set forth, since it's unenforceable per the new code. IANAL, but I doubt an attorney would use the language in 30.05 to defend a charge of trespass on government property that's a exception under 30.06, but rather would cite the exceptions in 30.06.
30.06. at allow e are originally specified at 30.06 making tand make it 40 mph. with

I don't know what speed limits have to do with anything. ...He asked if one could trespass on "public property", and one certainly can.

[puma guy]

The Kurth Library in Lufkin has text on the door prohibiting firearms and the text refers to section 30.05! It does not include the 30.06 language.

Is it even possible, by definition, to trespass on public property?

Of course it is.

However, it is a defense under 30.05 if the reason for the prohibited entry was carry under a CHL

"Of course it is."

It seems to me a lot less certain than you state. The first paragraph of 30.05 Criminal Trespass talks in specific language about being on the property of another. How can public property be property of another?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent ........

You don't own the public property. The courts have long interpreted that the governing bodies are in control of the property. This is long held.

You quote 30.05 as a defense to trespassing under 30.06, but since 30.06 was passed it seems to me that's moot. There is no trespass on government property for a CHL per 30.06 exceptions. That would be like having a law that says the maximum speed limit can be reduced to 30 mph along with some language that says it's a defense to prosecution,etc. But then subsequent statutes make an exception for that specific area that no longer allows the speed limit to be reduced. Someone decides to leave the 30 MPH sign up and you are cited for exceeding it. The new statute negates the need for any "defense to prosecution" originally set forth, since it's unenforceable per the new code. IANAL, but I doubt an attorney would use the language in 30.05 to defend a charge of trespass on government property that's a exception under 30.06, but rather would cite the exceptions in 30.06.
30.06. at allow e are originally specified at 30.06 making tand make it 40 mph. with

I don't know what speed limits have to do with anything. ...He asked if one could trespass on "public property", and one certainly can.

Sorry you don't understand it's just an analogy. I never disputed that one could trespass on public property. I was addressing your statement that 30.05 language was a defense for CHL trespass. There can be no CHL trespass at the Lufkin Library because 30.06 makes the exception, therefore 30.05 "defense to prosecution" language doesn't apply. IMHO. As in my hypothetical that a speed limit prohibited by exception in a statute is unenforceable.