Search found 1 match

by AubreyCTurnerJr
Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:55 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?
Replies: 1085
Views: 369862

Leased city land

Braden wrote: ...[snip]...

Here's an interesting article concerning the sign at the zoo:

http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/ ... worth_zoo/

If this gentlemen is correct, the land and the buildings at the zoo are owned by the city of Fort Worth. It is apparently leased by some zoo organization. As I understand 30.06, this apparent fact prevents a 30.06 sign from being legal anyway. Is that correct??
I've been following this forum for a while now and decided to join to comment on this. I'm the one who wrote the post at the above link. As you can see from the comments, it's attracted a bit of attention. It turns out that this post is the number one hit on Google when searching for "Ft. Worth Zoo address."

Anyhow, this is a subject I've been wondering about ever since I ran into it with the zoo. I seem to recall a post on here somewhere that questioned the legality of posting 30.06 on city-owned property, even if it was done by the lease-holder. It would seem to me that if it isn't allowed, this would also invalidate the 30.06 signs at the Ft. Worth gun shows at Will Rogers (if it's city-owned, which I seem to recall it being).

Return to “Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?”