TexasCHLforum.com

apostate wrote:

TacShot wrote:I have always had a problem with the phrase "or leased by a government entity...," as this could easily mean, for example, a commerical building leased by the city for the purpose of serving a neighborhood with a tax office, or neighborhood center.

I believe that portion of the phrase does mean precisely that. If the property is "leased by a governmental entity" then it doesn't matter if it's owned by a corporation, a natural person, or a different governmental entity. If the lessee is a governmental entity, 30.06 would not apply unless 46.03/46.035 apply.

Additionally, if the property is owned by a governmental entity, then it doesn't matter who/what controls the property at the moment. It could be rented by the day for a wedding or gun show, leased to a non-profit organization for 99 years, or managed/operated by a for-profit company on behalf of the government. If the owner is a governmental entity, then 30.06 does not apply unless 46.03/46.035 apply.

I found a post by Charles in a discussion about gun shows on government property, and your comments above concur with his explanation. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=40640&p=488146&hili ... ty#p488146" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JP171 wrote:Tac while I can understand that you don't want to be a test case, you would beat the rap but not the ride. The City owns the building it doesn't matter who the curator is or the non profit that runs the museum. the law clearly states that buildings owned or leased by a governmental entity makes 30:06 signs and oral notice un enforceable. this isn't open to debate by the entity, the law also states where 30:06 would be enforceable such as schools, city council or county commissioners meeting or MUD board meetings only during the meeting. but as I have heard they play games to circumvent the law anytime they can

I have always had a problem with the phrase "or leased by a government entity...," as this could easily mean, for example, a commerical building leased by the city for the purpose of serving a neighborhood with a tax office, or neighborhood center. I have no idea what the legislators had in mind or what the record of discussion indicates when the law was written. I'm not sure the intent of the law was to exclude third parties who might rent or lease property owned by a government entity. For example, the Fort Worth Gun Shows are held in the city owned Will Rogers Center, and are posted.

Perhaps someone could recall Charles weighing in on this in the past. If not, maybe Charles might want to shed some light on the intent of the phrase.

BrianSW99 wrote:Are you talking about the Museum of Nature and Science in Fair Park? If so, the buildings and property are owned by the City of Dallas, which means even if they are posted, it's not enforceable.

Brian

I am not sure the tenants are city of Dallas. If you go to the city web site, http://www.dallascityhall.com/html/city ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, which lists the Departments, Offices and Services at the City of Dallas, click on the Park & Recreation bullet, it will take you to P & R window. Clicking on Fair Park brings up that window. In the Fair Park window, still part of the official Dallas site, (http://www.dallascityhall.com/FairPark/ ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;,) you will not find the Museum of Nature & Science listed under Buildings. It is listed under Campus Members, and has a separate .org website (http://www.natureandscience.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) which causes me to question the ownership and the tenants. I believe the city leases out the various buildings to the tenant organizations who are then free to set their own policy on CHL carry.

I was there today, and after seeing the 30.06 notice in the left window of the entrance area, I took my pistol back to the car. I am not interested in being the test case.