TexasCHLforum.com

RPB

MikeStone wrote:The John P. McGovern Museum of Health and Medical Science has, what appears to be, a valid 30.06 sign posted. I'm not sure, but I thought most of the museums in the Hermann Park area of Houston were public.

http://www.thehealthmuseum.org/ManageDe ... goryid=423" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a citizens committee consisting of George Morse, Oveta Culp Hobby, Morgan Davis and Gail Whitcomb recommended that permanent health exhibits be constructed for public display. With funds raised through public contributions to the polio immunization program, along with contributions from physicians and a grant from Houston Endowment Inc., the Harris County Medical Society initiated plans to construct public health education exhibits.

http://www.mhms.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

need to check county Appraisal District property records to see who owns the land

http://www.hcad.org/records/Real.asp?search=addr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.hcad.org/records/details.asp ... ld=1&tab=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Owner Name &
Mailing Address: MUSEUM MEDICAL SCIENCE
PO BOX 88087
HOUSTON TX 77288-0087

Doesn't appear that that museum is Gov't property, though I assume most others are probably.

RPB

AJHutton wrote:Haun Elementary School in Plano has what appears to be an otherwise legal 30.06 sign posted at the entrance to their main parking lot. Does this mean I'm supposed to leave my gun in my car when I walk to the door to pick my kids up? I thought the law allowed CHL's to carry as long as as we didn't enter the "premises" (building or a portion of a building) or as long as there wasn't a school activity going on. Or is this an improper posting? Opinions?

That's also an issue related to government entities posting 30.06 signs where none should be, which I hope can be cleared up in 2013 legislative session if need be, because:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE and Texas EDUCATION CODE

We've had a discussion on this forum about whether an "Independent School District" with elected officials and ability to tax, is a governmental entity as a subdivision of the State, subject to State Preemption law (In my humble layman's opinion it is, and in some laws, I believe if you search ISD and government code here you'll find the thread ... I'll edit and give a link if I locate it)

A position exists that, IIRC, as an "Independent" entity. it isn't a government agency, though they can take and auction your home for failure to pay your taxes.

Sop, to answer that, In My Layman's opinion, the 30.06 sign posted on government property there, is not enforceable, though you might be arrested by ignorant (i mean uninformed of the relevant laws) ISD officers /// concealed is concealed

See the following threads, they may be several pages long
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33622&p=394406&hili ... t+#p394406" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=52697&p=659859&hili ... t+#p659859" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and particularly my reasoning in this post where the Texas Education Code makes reference to being subject to the Local Government Code, proving it is a government agency (in my mind anyway) even if you disregard the elected positions of trustees and taxing authority and ability to sell your home for nonpayment of tax
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=52697&p=659859&hili ... t+#p659892" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, in my mind, my layman's opinion, ... that sign is a bluff, not enforceable in the public school parking lot while no school sponsored activity is occurring in the parking lot for a non-employee of the school district who has a Texas CHL.
I'm not a lawyer

Code: Select all

Watch 46.15(a) and 46.15(b) in 2013 legislative session, there may be a fix coming 

Mods/Charles if I said to much feel free to edit

Charles, If I said too much, feel free to edit

RPB

30
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

46
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
==============================================
It's almost a logic problem
If a city/government places a 30.06 sign on a gov't owned property not prohibited for CHLs under chapter 46.03 or 46.035, then they are fulfilling the conditions concerning CHLs of:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

Thereby providing the stated defense.

However if they do not post a 30.06 sign AND the property is a critical infrastructure, then CHLs are not supposed to carry there since weapons are prohibited there.... and with no 30.06 sign, you have not been provided the stated defense to the 30.05 offense concerning critical infrastructure and those other things listed in 30.05 on government property.

I'm, not a lawyer, I just find it amusing, yes, confusing too

I could be reading it all wrong, but it's interesting

==========================================================================

So, IF a city has a 30.06 sign up at a park or library or place which is not a 30.05 place nor chapter 46 place, I might advise them to remove the sign, BUT IF the city puts up a 30.06 sign at a 30.05 place (say a city owned water treatment plant or 30.05 listed place) then by placing the 30.06 sign, they have provided a defense to the 30.05 charge if for some reason I did not disarm prior to entering so I would not go running to tell the city to remove the unenforceable sign which does nothing but provide a defense to me under 30.05 AND is unenforceable under 30.06 on city owned property, as long as it is not prohibited locations under Chapter 46.

See?

RPB

SewTexas wrote:Yes, but I would not recommend JT69 do this in person at his City Hall. He's a City Employee.

Right, I always sent "A concerned taxpayer" letter anonymously to potentially save the city money on such things ... don't get fired over it; however, you can make a dated copy prior to mailing if you ever need evidence (you really can't send CMrrr to prove receipt, but by sending to all councilmen, mayor, city manager, city attorney, city secretary etc etc etc it might be assumed someone received it) that the city was put on notice; say for a civil rights lawsuit if someday you get arrested for something which is not illegal. By sending it to everyone; and listing on it that it was sent to everyone, so that each one knows that every other one got it ... the City Manager or a city councilman can bring it up to another councilman "Hey, you got that letter about ... we better ask the city attorney on that, it was sent to him too ...." Or the City Attorney can bring it up as a way to earn some hourly research money and give them a decision ... and then the city council will probably need to vote to follow the city attorney's recommendation which should be to abide by State Law ...

(That's kinda how it happened before, they vote to follow the State Law / do what they should have done and remove the sign, but now they'll all get a warm fuzzy feeling for doing the right thing and potentially saving the city money and abiding by State Law and the City Attorney gets to feel important instead of just sending out Tax collection notices and doing the day to day boring city work. ... )

RPB

2firfun50 wrote:
JT69 wrote:Yep it's bull!!!! If they don't meet the criteria to post the signs if their is one ?? I wish that they could be informed of that!!! And made to take it down ! Because it's very wierd that people say that some of the signes or not leagley posted an u can walk past theme!!! But we where taught if it was a proper signe it was a no go!!! Are was I not a very good student lol.
I'm afraid this issue is never going to be resolved until we get together, create a legal fund, and go after the cities in state court. If we could win an injunction against the city of Austin, most other cities might just fall in line. Until then, we may just have to remember the old saying "You can't fight City Hall". None of us can fight alone, unless we win the Lottery.

I dunno, turns out you can fight city hall .....several of us have been successful in "fighting city hall" after sending what I call the "form letter" on preemption" The non-compliant signs at the Burnet County Tax office came down, and several non-compliant signs posted at city halls and other city or County facilities have been removed and ordinances repealed.

Now I do not advise private businesses on signs, but I'll send a letter or e-mail to get cities/counties to obey the State law ... I mean I have to obey the law, they do too.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=188&p=581186&hilit= ... n+#p581186" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

search.php?keywords=%22form+letter%22+%22preemption%22+" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RPB

Rusty Wrenches wrote:This place is none of those things. It is merely a storage yard and shop area

Well that explains it, they just needed a place to store a sign they can't use.

RPB

Rusty Wrenches wrote:City of Pearland public works building. Don't think they can put one up and the letters are way too small.

Dunno about "public works "

30.05 ...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(7) "Critical infrastructure facility" means one of the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders:

(A) a chemical manufacturing facility;

(B) a refinery;

(C) an electrical power generating facility, substation, switching station, electrical control center, or electrical transmission or distribution facility;

(D) a water intake structure, water treatment facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;

(E) a natural gas transmission compressor station;

(F) a liquid natural gas terminal or storage facility;

(G) a telecommunications central switching office;

(H) a port, railroad switching yard, trucking terminal, or other freight transportation facility;

(I) a gas processing plant, including a plant used in the processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas; or

(J) a transmission facility used by a federally licensed radio or television station.
...

IF "Public Works" is a critical Infrastructure Facility ... under 30.05, and it's a defense under 30.05 trespassing for chls if the basis was them carrying ...

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

perhaps they just wanted to provide the defense to prosecution to 30.05 for CHLs only, which would be easier to show there with a non-enforceable 30.06 sign ? but without the sign, it'd be trespassing under 30.05 without the defense? ...

============================================================

Oddly, it seems that's a way to "benefit" CHLs by placing an unenforceable 30.06 sign to provide a defense under 30.05 for them only ..

RPB

JKTex wrote:
tomharkness wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Please post the details of any city or other governmental entity or agency that is posting 30.06 signs where they are not warranted by Texas statute. I am particularly interested in the posting of a 30.06 sign where only a portion of a building is being used for an activity that is statutorily off-limits to CHL's. For example, some cities are putting a court clerk's office in city hall and declaring the entire building off-limits. At least one city has posted its library with 30.06 signs, solely because one of its schools occasionally has class field days there on "library days."

Thanks,
Chas.
The City of Pittsburg has the sign on City Hall. There are no judges, chiefs, Law Enforcement, or other in that building. Only the mayor... but he is a magistrate.
The only thing that matters is if court proceedings are held in that building. Sounds like there is, thus off limits regardless of signs or who offices there.

Court proceedings do not actually have to be held in the building ... but I agree, sounds like they found a way to make it off limits ... as long as he has an office there
(Or offices utilized by the Court)
Pittsburg's City Hall is located at 200 Rusk Street http://www.pittsburgtexas.com/departments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pittsburg Municipal Court located at 200 Rusk Street http://www.pittsburgtexas.com/departmen ... court.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Municipal Court Judge is Steven Simmons, who works out of the City Hall office

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;
=======================

Similar situation in my city, where I had to have my niece or friend run in to pay utility bill at city offices, (or disarm in the car) as Municipal Court cashier etc was there too ... now I auto-draft my bank for the city util bill and don't go there.

Texas DPS/Driver License and County Tax for license plates are in the County Court Annex Bldg... So I do online stuff and got lic plates/trailer/ car registration stickers which last longer than normal (an option I learned from them last time, so you can pay several future years now and not have to go back each year)

RPB

Ldy AlliDu wrote:My MUD office just put up a sign
Looks like a Mickey Mouse sign.
No se permiten armas

Galveston County Mud District ... ?

That probably applies only to guns made in Spain ... I think Star Firearms are made in Spain ... of course Mexico doesn't make firearms because the US Government as well as other Countries supply theirs at substantial discounts ... Taurus is Brazilian I think so they'd need to have the sign in Portuguese too if they want to prohibit Taurus, and Austrian for Glocks .... however none apply to a CHL if the building isn't prohibited due to having offices utilized by a Court or other prohibited area

RPB

Declaratory Judgement/Injunctive Relief Texas

http://www.dallasinjunctionlawyer.com/TRCP_680.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.juistpc.com/papers/injunc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By posting, I am not vouching that those are up to date.... or not ... I was just thinking out loud my layperson's thought.

My mind works like lightning .... a brilliant flash .... and then its gone ....

RPB

JKTex wrote:
puma guy wrote:Anyway is there something I am missing that allows an exemption to the 30.06 prohibition for gov'mnt to post 30.06 gun shows and has it ever been challenged?

Don't forget that the gun show is privately owned/promoted and they lease the building for the show. I believe that's what's called a game changer. :)

Charles stated something like that if you own something and lease it to someone else, you can't "lease out more rights than you owned" ... if the city owns property and doesn't have a right to (dig for oil, test nuclear weapons, ban firearms to licensees) neither does the entity that leases it.

One can't convey more than they own.

Otherwise, I could lease a structure on US Army Corps of Engineers property and say bring your guns because I'm leasing it, even though the USACE prohibits guns.

The person leasing it doesn't get more rights than the property owner has.
The private gun show probably doesn't have to give you admittance though if you don't go by their rules, and most have (probably off-duty) hired Police at the door to enforce their rules.

RPB

41Garand wrote:City of Webster
Civic Center
311 Pennsylvania Ave.
Webster, TX 77598

Has the 30-06 Signs on all entrances.

http://www.cityofwebster.com/index.aspx?NID=547" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Webster has City Ordinance issues they need to address.
Really, all they need to do is pass additional ordinance language excepting/exempting CHLs, and replace the signs.
Easily done by adding a
Sec. 58-84. - Exceptions....(3) This division does not apply to aeans a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code who is carrying a concealed handgun of the type authorized. (or something similar)
Feel free to use/customize the "form letter" viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49133&p=603067&hili ... er#p603067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the first thing I found, haven't even looked at Parks etc

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx? ... name=Texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Webster, Texas, Code of Ordinances >> PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Chapter 58 - OFFENSES >> ARTICLE III. - WEAPONS >> DIVISION 2. - FIREARMS ON CITY PREMISES >>

DIVISION 2. - FIREARMS ON CITY PREMISES

Sec. 58-81. - Definitions.

Sec. 58-82. - Carrying firearms prohibited.

Sec. 58-83. - Notice.

Sec. 58-84. - Exceptions.

Secs. 58-85—58-110. - Reserved.

Sec. 58-81. - Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Airgun means an airgun, air pistol, air rifle or any other device using air pressure to propel a projectile through a barrel.

Building means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament or use.

City premises means a building or any portion thereof and real property or any portion thereof owned, leased, occupied or in any manner controlled by the city. However, city premises shall not include parks, driveways, streets, parking lots or other parking areas owned or operated by the city, nor shall such term include sidewalks and walkways which are not adjacent to real property or a building or portion thereof owned, leased, occupied or in any manner controlled by the city and used as a means of ingress and egress.

Enter or entry means the intrusion of the entire body.

Firearm means:

(1)

Any device designed, made or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use; or

(2)

An airgun.

Notice means:

(1)

Oral or written communication by the city through its city manager;

(2)

Fencing or any other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or

(3)

A sign posted on the premises or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden.

(Ord. No. 96-05, § 1(15-90(a)), 3-19-96)

Cross reference— Definitions generally, § 1-2.

Sec. 58-82. - Carrying firearms prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person carrying a firearm, whether the firearm is concealed or unconcealed, may not enter or remain on city premises.

(Ord. No. 96-05, § 1(15-90(b)), 3-19-96)

Sec. 58-83. - Notice.

Notice that (i) entry is forbidden to anyone carrying a firearm not permitted by this division and (ii) anyone found carrying a firearm not permitted by this division on city premises must depart. Notice shall be given at all city premises in which entry to the premises with a firearm is forbidden. Such notice shall be given in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on the premises. The sign shall appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public. The notice shall read substantially as follows:

Entry onto these premises while carrying a firearm, whether the firearm is concealed or unconcealed, is prohibited beyond this point. Entry onto these premises while carrying a firearm may subject you to prosecution for criminal trespass under V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 30.05.

(Ord. No. 96-05, § 1(15-90(c)), 3-19-96)

Sec. 58-84. - Exceptions.

Exceptions to enforcement of this division are as follows:

(1)

This division does not apply to a peace officer or a commissioned security officer hired by or under contract with the city and acting within the scope of that employment or to a peace officer of another governmental unit lawfully acting within the scope of that peace officer's duties.

(2)

A person may transport, demonstrate and display a firearm for the purposes of show or sale on city premises in connection with an event approved by the city manager, subject to any terms and conditions which the city manager may require.

(Ord. No. 96-05, § 1(15-90(d)), 3-19-96)

Secs. 58-85—58-110. - Reserved.

RPB

UPDATE
Burnet County Appraisal District removed their improper signs

They HAD a sign on the door, 3 years ago, and [/u]I mentioned it to the employees, they still had the sign 2 years ago, so I called the County Criminal Prosecutor who said he thinks appraisal districts are Courts because like the restaurant, office supply store etc, it's on the Courthouse square and they have administrative "hearings" there (with real estate appraisers, not Judges)

Last year, I mentioned it to a County Judge who's husband was running for District Judge (both have CHLs and are VERY knowledgeable

) [ I asked the candidate if he had a CHL when he was campaigning, he said yes he and his wife both do ... I then told him about the non-compliant unenforceable sign ...]

Went and paid my House taxes minutes ago, took camera to photo the sign .... doors now have no sign except the hours they are open and one pointing to envelopes and drop box for after hours payments.

No such signs inside either.

I liberated my County/City from the expense of a potential suit for violating civil rights.

I think that County Judge is contemplating running for State Legislature now .... maybe. maybe not
http://www.burnetcountytexas.org/defaul ... ountyjudge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/appointment/12039/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.highlandernews.com/news_arti ... le_id=1152" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Schwertner announced Tuesday he intends to seek the Republican nomination in the 2012 Texas State Senate District 5 race to replace Sen Steve Ogden, who announced his retirement.

Supporters and some Republican party officials have urged Klaeger to run for the state House position since Schwertner announced his decision, Klaeger acknowledged.

http://dailytrib.com/all-other/11101-kl ... ate-house-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Klaeger
--------------------

I updated the entry on Texas3006.com just now too

RPB

RHenriksen wrote:duly noted!

So... what process is recommended for having a legally unenforceable sign taken down?

One way that often works in most cities we've done it:

Writing to "just" the city attorney is a good start, and his overworked assistant will put it under the other work and some day it may or may not get passed on to the next city Atty.. (see Disclaimer below)

Sending to City Atty AND Mayor AND every council member and city secretary (to put on notice under most city charters) and to police chief and and city manager gets them talking among themselves about it ... THEN the CITY ATTY can justify charging the city for research billable hours .... and making recommendations, which they'll follow

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46764&p=572044&hili ... on#p572044" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41993&p=505784&hil ... on#p505784" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

it often works (several cities changed their no guns in parks ordinances,m removed signs etc) as you'll see here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=188&p=562291&hilit=removed#p562291" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=42833&p=516728&hil ... ry#p516724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Got word today that at the recommedation of the assistant City Manager and the Chief of Police the City Counsel "voted" to remove 30.06 signs at city hall and allow CHL's to attend City Counsel meetings. The assistant City Manager told the counsel that if a shooter started shooting counsel members during a meeting that he would want all the CHL guns he could get into the chambers. The Police Chief agreed. Apparently so did the counsel members.

(Disclaimer: as a legal assistant for over 25 years. I'd never put anything on the bottom of the stack which was less of a priority .... but I knew a guy once ... oh baloney, everyone prioritizes, and squeaky wheels get greased and when the city council and Mayor and city Manager are all asking the city atty about it ...and the city Atty keeps asking the Legal Assistant about it, it goes to the top of the stack fast so you can get back to Solitaire .... not that I had Solitaire on my computer ... just sayin')

(Quit laughing Charles)

RPB

puma guy wrote:I previously posted about Pasadena Police Department exhibiting a 30.06 sign on the entrance. I had occaision to visit recently and it's been removed.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 45 matches

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?