TexasCHLforum.com

Jeff Barriault wrote:Didn't even know that there was a municipal court office in the building. Being a multi use building and not an actual court building, how does the existing statute apply?

(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;

Does it apply to the entire building, or just the offices utilized by the court?

Jeff Barriault wrote:I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.

30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.

Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:So would this make a 30.06 sign at a gun show on public property illegal?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I guess I don't understand your argument. Government property is controlled by public employees, not private companies. I disagree with your statement that most of the unenforceable signs are posted by private companies operating on public property. The vast majority of signs are posted by government employees on places such as schools, city hall, public libraries, government hospitals, zoos, etc.

If this bill were expanded to cover private persons who post unenforceable signs it wouldn't pass.

Chas.