TexasCHLforum.com

TXBO wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. So...to avoid the fine but still post a firearms prohibited gun buster, all these municipalities could replace 30.06 signs with the gun buster signs like the ones at Love? I could see an LTCer being detained by airport security for picking someone up at the baggage claim because the security is confused by the law. So if those signs have no weight why are they there? There's your issue for 2017. Include in that statue gun buster signs with the 30.06 wording.

Under current law, any sign that references §30.06, a concealed handgun license, or a licensee is already unlawful. We don't need address this and we don't want to address generic no-gun signs that don't meet the current criteria.

Chas.

Can you clarify that since we are talking about county and municipalities posting those signs, not private businesses. Again, using Love Field as the example, if you walk up to the any of the main entrance doors you'll see a gun buster with the wording (don't recall exact quote but is very close to it) firearms are not permitted on these premises. I know that that only applies to the "secured areas" and it's my job to know the law but it's misleading. And can I trust the airport police to know that sign is meaningless to an LTCer who is only there to pick up a passenger.

I can see the sign saying firearms not permitted in secured areas or posting at the entrance to TSA checkpoints. What's to keep counties/cities from posting similar signs on all their buildings simply because they didn't reference 30.06?

They can post them and they can apply to any gun that is not carried under the authority of LTC.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. So...to avoid the fine but still post a firearms prohibited gun buster, all these municipalities could replace 30.06 signs with the gun buster signs like the ones at Love? I could see an LTCer being detained by airport security for picking someone up at the baggage claim because the security is confused by the law. So if those signs have no weight why are they there? There's your issue for 2017. Include in that statue gun buster signs with the 30.06 wording.

Under current law, any sign that references §30.06, a concealed handgun license, or a licensee is already unlawful. We don't need address this and we don't want to address generic no-gun signs that don't meet the current criteria.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.

Chas.

TexasCajun wrote:

Tracker wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:I'd like to see the gov't property 30.06/07 prohibition rewritten. Instead of a mechanism for reporting illegal/unenforceable signs to the OAG & having the OAG investigate, gov't entities should have to apply to the OAG for permission to post 30.06/07 at gov't owned premises. If the entity posts without authorization, they'd incur automatic fines - per sign, per day.

If we can't go that far, then I'd be ok with a revised mechanism that would allow fines to be retroactively applied to both the gov't entity and any private company/group/etc hosting events on gov't property. That way, when Harris County or Galeveston County allows the livestock show & rodeo group to post the entire event grounds with 30.06/07, they'd be on the hook along with the county. As it stands, temporary events are being posted and then "remedied" when the event concludes.

Got a question related to this. Would a municipality be violating the law if they took down the 30.06 signs and posted a [legally non compliant] gun buster signs that say "The carrying of a firearm is prohibited on this premises?

Yed. Any attempt by a govt entity to prohibit licensed carry is a violation.

TexasCajun wrote:I'd like to see the gov't property 30.06/07 prohibition rewritten. Instead of a mechanism for reporting illegal/unenforceable signs to the OAG & having the OAG investigate, gov't entities should have to apply to the OAG for permission to post 30.06/07 at gov't owned premises. If the entity posts without authorization, they'd incur automatic fines - per sign, per day.

If we can't go that far, then I'd be ok with a revised mechanism that would allow fines to be retroactively applied to both the gov't entity and any private company/group/etc hosting events on gov't property. That way, when Harris County or Galeveston County allows the livestock show & rodeo group to post the entire event grounds with 30.06/07, they'd be on the hook along with the county. As it stands, temporary events are being posted and then "remedied" when the event concludes.