TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Legislation is the preferred method of "fixing" a problem. Yes, it can take longer, but it provides us the opportunity to control details of the bill. Things like definitions are very important, sometimes critical, and cross-referencing proposed legislation with current statutes can avoid unintended consequences.

I see your point. But until we get such legislation, I think CHL's should be advised to carefully consider the possible consequences of carrying in a leased facility that is posted, even if it may be improperly posted.

What I feel uneasy with is when someone posts something like, "Well, the city owns the land so the business leasing it can't enforceably post, so it's OK to carry.", like it's a done deal. Someone might act on that advice and get themselves into trouble (though as Nazrat points out, things would be unlikely to go that far unless the CHL pushed it to an unreasonable level).

In my view I think it is at least unclear as to whether 30.06 is enforceable in that instance. And unless I am misunderstanding you Chas, on some level you think it is not completely clear yourself, or you would not propose fixing it (clarifying it) with legislation.

Do you agree that further clarification is needed in the law and definitions, or do you think it's a done deal and that private leasees of government-owned property cannot enforce 30.06?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I think theTSRA should seek an opinion from Abbott on this.

Private persons and entities cannot ask for an AG's opinion.

Chas.

OK then. I would suggest that the TSRA ask someone on the list of authorized requestors as defined in the statute to request a formal opinion from AG Abbott. The list that Nazrat posted comprises a lot of people. Surely there must be at least one who would look favorably on a request from the TSRA.

This is Texas, after all.

As I said, AG Abbott is the most pro-gun, pro-CHL AG we have ever had, and most likely ever will have. If anyone would issue an opinion on this issue favorable to CHL holders, it would be him.

If this were done, and we got a favorable outcome, many venues that now improperly ban CHL's from carrying would be forced to change their policies in one fell swoop.

That would clearly be a good thing.

Liberty wrote: Nazrat I will surely respect your decision to bow out of this discussussion as you choose. It sounds to me as though any court in the state can basically overturn this. and that any opinion from the AG has no weight in court? What it means is that that LEOs can use these opinions to justify their actions/nonactions

First, thanks to Nazrat for posting the reference I was thinking of.

Liberty, you're right that a court can overturn an AG's opinion. But don't discount the fact that until and unless a court DOES overturn it, it has the force of law.

This can work for us as well as against us.

Let's say, for example, that Greg Abbott issued an opinion to the effect that if a private business leases property from the government, the private business CANNOT enforceably post the property 30.06 because the ultimate OWNER of the property is the government, then that's the way it is. If such property was posted and a CHL were subsequently arrested for violating section 30.06, not only would the the case be summarily dismissed, but there would be a possibility of bringing a false arrest action, IMO.

Also, TSRA could contact the private business BEFORE anyone was arrested and advise them of the AG's opinion and the fact that they had no authority to enforce 30.06 on their premesis. At that point, they would have little choice but to take the signs down and/or stop trying to enforce them.

Or alternatively, they could bring an action in court seeking to have the AG's opinion overturned.

On the other hand, if Abbott opined that for the purposes of 30.06, the leaseholder was the effective owner of the property regardless of who held the fee simple title, then Frankie's right and the leaseholder (if a private entity) can post the property and enforce it at will.

I think the TSRA should seek an opinion from Abbott on this. Abbott is one of the most pro-gun and pro-CHL AG's we have ever had or could ever hope to have. He was one of the prime movers behind our CHL law. If any AG could be expected to give us a favorable ruling, it would be him.

And it could be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper than bringing a lawsuit against a private leasee.

Again, IANAL and the above only represents my opinion.

Liberty wrote: I didn't think that State Atorney General had any meaning. Its just an opinion. Would their opinion carry more weight than a local DA such as Chucky's

I think that in TX, when the AG issues an opinion on the law, it is binding until or unless ruled otherwise by the courts. But IANAL, and I'm not sure exactly how this works or where that authority comes from.

I would be very interested in one of the lawyers on this board explaining this further.

anygunanywhere wrote: Why don't we bombard Texas Attorney General Greg Abbottwith every instance we find where governments restrict CHL in facilities that are not off limits? His email is on the OAG web page http://www.oag.state.tx.us/agency/contacts.shtml.

I think that is a great idea.

CHL/LEO wrote:Just got a call from my supervisor and we've now been told that the State Fair management has decided to allow CHL holders onto the premises. It seems like a lot of phone calls has caused them to change directions. CHL holders will need to notify security at the gates that they have a weapon and a State Fair representative will be called to the location to verify the CHL is in order.

An interesting point that came to light is that a lot of the vendors that operate at the fair have CHLs and they were extremely upset to find out that they might not be allowed in without their weapons. I'm sure that that might have had something to do with it too. Hopefully this will put an end to it but you never know.

Outstanding!

CHL/LEO wrote: My personal advice (not as a police officer) to anyone wanting to pursue this avenue would be to go to the gate and ask one of the State Fair security people to have a Dallas Police officer brought over. Tell that officer that you don't think the State Fair rules are legal and that you plan to "challenge" those rules. Tell him you plan to enter (or attempt to enter) the State Fair and you understand that you will be issued a CT warning by a State Fair representative. Tell the officer that you plan to violate that warning and understand that you will be arrested, but under no circumstance do you want to cause a scene or any problems for that officer - that you understand that he or she is just doing their job.

Aw! You left out all the good parts!

1) Get out your wallet and bail yourself out of jail.
2) Resign yourself to not seeing your gun again for quite a while, if ever.
3) Get out your wallet and write a HUGE check to your legal defense team.
4) Most likely, IMO, lose in the end.
5) Possibly do some time.
6) Lose your CHL for 5 or 7 years (something like that).

IANAL, but MY personal advice as a fellow gun owner, CHL'er, and compassionate human being is to let the TSRA pursue this and get a definitive court ruling of some kind.

Sangiovese wrote: And this is not even considering the fact that it will be illegal to ban CHLs anyway due to it being government property.

Thoughts?

If State Fair of Texas Inc., a private organization, leases the fairgrounds, then I would say that they are the ones controlling the property for that time period and that it is THEIR RIGHT to allow or deny concealed handguns as they see fit.

Just like the AA Center that we discussed earlier.

I understand that some others have a different interpretation. I am very interested to learn which interpretation is correct. This will probably require a court action of some sort.

Is thet State Fair put on by a government agency or a private business?

Are the fairgrounds going to be posted with proper 30.06 signs, or are they going to surprise people with a verbal "no guns allowed"?