TexasCHLforum.com

This may be a test case.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 58523.html

The gist of this article is that the shooter may be charged with violating the 30.06 signs posted at the door. I don't believe such signs should be legally valid, since the George R. Brown is a publicly owned facility. The counter argument is that they are because they are being leased by a private party.

I hope this isn't a case of bad facts making bad law. If he hasn't sufferred enough already, and has to be charged with something, I'd rather see him charged with intentionally failing to keep it concealed.

Scott