TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote: No, you misunderstand the meaning of "public". Public refers to buildings owned or operated by the government. Churches are, by Constitutional declaration (the First Amendment), strictly private.

Right. Now I remember why I'm not a lawyer - I can never keep this all straight.

So, FPS can regulate PRIVATE property that is open to the public. Let's not go into the day care in the home,which FPS does regulate but which has different rules. If I have a building that is not my home and I dedicate it to being a child care for my own kids, I'm not subject to regulation, correct? My property, my kids, my control. As soon as I open it to other people's kids, FPS can control what I do, down to the inches of mulch under the slide in the playground if I have one. And if it were a standalone building, they could and, according to their email would force me to put up signs banning firearms. Now a question: A search of Texas3006.com only turned up one place in Austin that looked like a daycare, why aren't there more? Let's don't go down the path that Texas3006 is not complete - I know that. I also know that there are 100s of churches in my area that have day care and should be regulated by FPS. None yet are posted, at least that I've seen. Following that logic, every one of the non-religious child care places should already be posted, and I don't see those on any list either. I drove by two of them this morning - no signs.

I'm not trying to boil the ocean here but just trying to understand the situation that our church is facing. I see that other churches have posted 30,07 signs My fear is that if our church did the same, the follow up question from FPS would be "where is the 30.06 sign?" since they regulate and prohibit both. I'm trying to separate this from Constitutional aspects of the terms involved since our church does not have the resources to take this to court to fight a Constitutional question. I simply want to understand to what is necessary to stay off of FPS's radar, on firearms regulations or anything else that they list.

G.A. Heath wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

gljjt wrote:What is the supposed penalty for violating a "rule"?

The entity licensed by the state (Child Care provider) can loose their license or be fined. For the general public we would have to violate the signage they are forcing the licensed entities to post and thus suffer the penalties for violating 30.06 and 30.07.

To be clear, their email says specifically that they are not requiring signs be posted. But the email seems to imply that effective notice must be given since they supply the 30.06 and 30.07 language My interpretation is that it could be done via written notice. But I can find no one with experience from previous FPS examinations that will confirm what I believe.

You might want to re-read the email in the OP, it says

We do not regulate the signage that could apply if the center operates in a public building.

This implies that if it is not in a public building then they do regulate the signage.

Thanks. i have a copy of that original email and did see what you quoted. A church should be considered a public building. But that does not resolve how FPS determines compliance. I've been successful so far in postponing the discussion about signage until we get a response from the lawyer.

Let me draw you what I think is a parallel. I built a barn on my property. I wanted a concrete floor. The city told me that they did not require soil testing. But they had a requirement that a foundation engineer sign off on my concrete plan. I could not find a foundation engineering group who would certify as the city required without a soil test. So I ended up paying $1,000 for a soil test that the city didn't require.

G.A. Heath wrote:

gljjt wrote:What is the supposed penalty for violating a "rule"?

The entity licensed by the state (Child Care provider) can loose their license or be fined. For the general public we would have to violate the signage they are forcing the licensed entities to post and thus suffer the penalties for violating 30.06 and 30.07.

To be clear, their email says specifically that they are not requiring signs be posted. But the email seems to imply that effective notice must be given since they supply the 30.06 and 30.07 language My interpretation is that it could be done via written notice. But I can find no one with experience from previous FPS examinations that will confirm what I believe.

JALLEN wrote:Does the agency have the authority to make such a rule? There are procedural requirements as well as the substantive grants of authority in statutes.

Grants of authority by the Lege to a regulatory body are not generally expansive. There needs to be a specific grant.

In an email, I asked them where their authority was granted. They came back with the number 46.042. Since there is no such entry in TPC, I assume this to be in the administrative code. Since I have asked a lawyer to research it for us, I didn't try to look it up myself.

baldeagle wrote:There is a lot of speculation going on in this thread that is not based on law.

The Texas DPS is referring to the Texas Administrative Code. The Texas Administrative Code is a compilation of the rules of the state agencies. The rules that DPS cite explicitly state that weapons are not allowed "for all other persons" (than law enforcement officials). I have no doubt that it's against the law to violate state agency rules (perhaps a lawyer can cite the code and section), so I would highly advise anyone entering a child care facility to obey the rules.

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/r ... 46&rl=3707

Baldeagle. The problem here, I believe, is different than someone entering the child care space with a gun. It is whether the rules that apply to the child care space cover the entire building that is not specifically dedicated to child care. In our case, there is a segregated wing with locked doors during the child care hours. The unfortunate part for us is that the child care area is also used for Sunday school on the weekends. Also, on rainy days when the kids cannot go outside, some of the rest of the church is used by at least some of the child care classes. I'll admit upfront that I don't understand all of this, including the term "designated space" used in the FPS.

Many of the large churches in our area have child care. None of them are currently posted. I can only draw the conclusion that whatever level of enforcement of the administrative code by FPS in the past did not drive 30.06 and 30.07 signage and, since their own email states that nothing has changed, nothing should drive those signs now. It could be, however, that FPS, like Carter Bloodcare has always had a policy and has only now been awakened that it isn't being handled as they thought. That is not as much about the law as about the enforcement of it.

In many ways, I see a parallel with TABC. They also have regulations and those, for right or wrong, are being interpreted by some liquor license holders as requiring them to post 30.07 signs. I never expected all of this to be worked out quickly but there should be some way to start down the process of working it out. I just don't understand what that process is as it relates toe FPS. I have referred our situation to a lawyer who used to work for FPS but she has not been able to spend time on it yet. My initial conversation with her suggested that she was going to have to spend a fair amount of time figuring it out because she didn't understand it off the top of her head, even at the high level. That, too, suggests that it didn't come up while she worked there.

ELB wrote:Unless there is some statute explicitly authorizing the DFPS to force child care centers to post, then it sounds like they are grabbing authority they do not have, and they need a smack on the head for it. When there is no genuine penalty for a bureaucrat to break the law, then he's going to do whatever he feels like, we saw that for years with the posting of government buildings. SB 273 fixed that in a hurry. Sounds like that solution should be extended.

But the claim in their email is that this has ALWAYS been their policy and that the email was simply a reminder of that policy in light of OC.
I've asked many others about how previous compliance was determined. I know that we have had onsite inspections and they have found us non-compliant in some areas. I really don't want to ask them "how was firearm policy compliance assessed in the past" because I fear that I won't like the answer.

What their rules can do is to invalidate your child care license if they don't like your compliance with them. They do not permit carry by off-duty LEOs and have (IMHO) no basis for that regulation. I, too, wrote them and asked about their statutory basis. They are covered by the administrative code, not the TPC.

I'm guessing that the gunbusters sign is not going to cut it if they do a compliance check. Their response email to me included the 30.06 and 30.07 legal wording. While they say that they do not require the signs, it clear that they expect effective notice to be issued. Right now, I'm hoping that such notice can be limited to the parents and the child care staff.

At the macro level, I cannot imagine them invalidating every child care license for failing to post .06, 07 signs. But I don't want our church's child care to be the test case.