TexasCHLforum.com

Kyle Brown wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:LOL...all I can say in response is you have made a very broad statement. If I understand you correctly, you have determined that a 'school district' is a 'government agency' REGARDLESS of how it was formed, how it is regulated, or by whom...very broad and (in my opinion) totally unsupportable. The TEC is full of references in regard to defining specific types of school districts, and how they are totally different with regard to how they are formed/dissolved, how they are regulated, and who regulates them. Have you actually read any part of the TEC???

It appears to me that the statute specifically states that a school district is a government agency, no need to read anything else, there it is in black letter law. Yup, it's a broad statement, it's a broad law "(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state."

And yet, you deny that the statute exists, even after it's posted for you.

No, I don't deny that it exists. I do believe that to understand the definition of a 'school district' you must reference the TEC. In doing so, you will see defined several unique school districts. So, in the statute you referenced, it probably (I have not researched it) is addressing those school districts that could be considered a 'government agency' such as a municipal school district since the municipality actually owns the real and personal property used/accessed by the municipal school district. I can say with reasonable certainty that the statute you referenced does not define a school district. In fact, I am positive that it does not define a school district.

Kyle Brown wrote:LOL...all I can say in response is you have made a very broad statement. If I understand you correctly, you have determined that a 'school district' is a 'government agency' REGARDLESS of how it was formed, how it is regulated, or by whom...very broad and (in my opinion) totally unsupportable. The TEC is full of references in regard to defining specific types of school districts, and how they are totally different with regard to how they are formed/dissolved, how they are regulated, and who regulates them. Have you actually read any part of the TEC???

Kyle Brown wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

RPB wrote:governmental subdivision or agency

Texas Penal Code 1.08
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/pe.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

And a "school district" is a governmental agency with regard to property

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 271
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SUBCHAPTER A. PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCE ACT
Sec. 271.001. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Public Property Finance Act.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.271.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b) This subchapter promotes a public purpose by furnishing governmental agencies with a feasible means to purchase or otherwise acquire, use, and finance public property.

(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state.

Therefore, though they fence off and post signs, they are preempted by 1.08, from "enforcing": the 30.06 law to the extent it imposes a penalty....

or something like that
==edited because I linked to chapter 46 penal instead of chapter 1.08 ... corrected

Isn't (4) above "statute?"

If not, why not?

If so, why, Kyle Brown, are you ignoring it while insisting that others show you a statute?

Either way it appears that there is a wealth in evidence that ISDs are indeed governmental entities and therefore cannot post VALID 30.06 signage.

I apologize for the delay in answering your question. The Texas Education Code (TEC) indentifies and defines seveal types of public "school districts". For instance, the TEC identifies and defines Municipal School Districts, Common School Districts, Military Reservation School Districts, Independent School Districts, and Consolidated School Districts. Furthermore, the TEC specifies that the Texas Education AGENCY (TEA) shall serve as the only state AGENCY regulating ALL pubic schools and public school districts within the State Of Texas. In addition, the TEC clearly provides for the establishment and dissolution of ISDs, and specifies the subsequent disposition of real and personal property owned by those ISDs. As I understood it, a part of the discussion in this thread focused on whether an ISD can post and enforce a TPC 30.06 sign on their real property. It is my opinion that they certainly can. My opinion is based upon the manner in which an ISD is formed and/or dissolved, how an ISD may acquire and dispose of real and personal property, that an ISD is not a state agency, that the ISD board is required to take possession of real property owned by the ISD, that the board may allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property, and that the TEA does not (and I maintain cannot) deny an ISD the authority to allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property.

RPB wrote:governmental subdivision or agency

Texas Penal Code 1.08
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/pe.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

And a "school district" is a governmental agency with regard to property

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 271
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SUBCHAPTER A. PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCE ACT
Sec. 271.001. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Public Property Finance Act.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.271.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b) This subchapter promotes a public purpose by furnishing governmental agencies with a feasible means to purchase or otherwise acquire, use, and finance public property.

(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state.

Therefore, though they fence off and post signs, they are preempted by 1.08, from "enforcing": the 30.06 law to the extent it imposes a penalty....

or something like that
==edited because I linked to chapter 46 penal instead of chapter 1.08 ... corrected

G.A. Heath wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:Property owned/leased by Texas ISDs is not government propery. All Texas ISD property (Real and Personal) is privately owned/leased by the Board of Trustees.

Can you provide evidence supporting this claim? As far as I can tell an ISD holds public elections along side government entities, they tax private property, they are exempt from sales tax, can assert eminent domain, have a police force, and act like a government in other ways. To convince me otherwise I would need to see some codified law or case law that says ISDs are not a governmental body.

Keith B wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: Plano ISD claims they are not a government agency -- only a "pseudo-government agency", whatever that is.

Where did you hear this? I have not heard them calim anything other than they feel they are valid.