30.06 signs at city hall, rec center and library

[SlideMan]

I work for a local city in North Texas and the city has posted 30.06 signs at city hall, rec-center and public library. No government court or court offices in either location. I believe this could be in response to my inquiring about the citys policy of weapons in locked employee vehicles while in city parking lots. Opened a can of worms I guess.
My question is what authorities, local, state or otherwise would I contact to have these signs removed.
If it became known that I’m involved I would be dismissed (fired) for sure and I’m only 4 years away from full retirement.
Thanks in advance.

[lonewolf]

I would respectfully suggest sending a copy of the applicable codes/laws to the city/county (as appropriate) attorney, highlighting the specific sections that address the situation.

[C-dub]

Anonymously, of course. We wouldn't want to jeopardize you retirement.

[C-dub]

Oh, and BTW, here's a perfect example of why we don't ask questions like this or are extremely careful when we do. Even though the city's posting of these signs is wrong, it could have been any other business. So, in all fairness, since this is Slideman's first post he may not have been lurking around here long enough to have learned this lesson the easy way. Let this be a lesson for those considering doing this.

[rm9792]

Post the addresses and names and members here can mail letters of complaint.

[C-dub]

Post the addresses and names and members here can mail letters of complaint.

Excellent idea!

[Oldgringo]

Post the addresses and names and members here can mail letters of complaint.

Excellent idea!

Yep...for those who live and vote there.

[Oldgringo]

Oh, and BTW, here's a perfect example of why we don't ask questions like this or are extremely careful when we do. Even though the city's posting of these signs is wrong, it could have been any other business. So, in all fairness, since this is Slideman's first post he may not have been lurking around here long enough to have learned this lesson the easy way. Let this be a lesson for those considering doing this.

From the rooftops and in every CHL course - this lesson should be shouted!

It's true, a little learnin' is a dangerous thing.

[RPB]

I usually e-mail, and/or send anonymous letters to the City Attorney, City Secretary, Mayor, City Police, Each City Council member.
You can create a new G-Mail/Hotmail/Yahoo account just for that and any replies and keep it ...
Anony Mouse.


TO:
Mayor,
City Attorney,
City Secretary,
City Police,
Each City Council member.
(Parks Dept, etc etc etc as needed)

I'm trying to save the City money and am concerned about the City currently violating a State law which could lead to a Federal Lawsuit which would be very expensive to defend.

Excluding Courts, most City owned (Property, Library, PARKS, buildings) are not allowed to prohibit concealed handgun carry licensees, reference to Texas Penal Code Section 46, specifically sections 46.02, 46.03, and 46.035 in the link below for your convenience.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... htm#46.035" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Furthermore, Texas Penal Code 1.08 specifically prohibits municipal and County governments, including any subdivision or agency from enacting or enforcing laws governing conduct reserved for state law.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

The State further asserts its sole authority to regulate concealed carry, superseding any municipal ordinance or law.

Local Government Code 229.001, specifically denies cities the right to regulate Concealed Handgun Licensees while granting cities the right to regulate some use of arms by unlicensed individuals, notice the "other than" language in the Statue below:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.229.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 229.001. FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.

(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:

(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.

And lastly, government owned buildings such as the (Property, Library, PARKS, buildings, civic center) are specifically prohibited from banning the carrying of guns by CHL holders via the PC 30.06 trespassing statute (the only way that private businesses can ban CHL in Texas).

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#30.06" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas PC 30.06 (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.

Since a "good faith" arrest can NOT be made for anything which is NOT illegal, I hope the officers, sheriffs, Constables are aware of the above, and trained/informed accordingly, so the Governments don't waste money due to a Federal §1983 civil rights lawsuit.


(Add whatever ordinance or location is improper)

Signed a concerned City Taxpayer and voter.

[RPB]

After they get that letter, they have been put on notice, and "Knew or should have known" (foreseeability) and failure to correct could be construed to be negligence should anything occur.

Feel free to edit that to fit whatever circumstances if you want to use it.

I'm not a lawyer, I just like to save my taxes and inform cities/Counties of potential pitfalls so they don't raise my taxes due to their lack of knowledge.

Reason I send it to EVERYONE, If just sent to one person, they'd throw it away, but city atty will want researching fees, Council and/or Mayor will ask opinion on it, ordinances may need exceptions added which Council will vote upon anyway and they'll know they have to all vote to "make it legal" City Secretary is often the person the City Charter says you "give notice" to ... Police Chief is responsible for informing officers they can't arrest CHLs in good faith for that which isn't illegal.

Also, "someone" will remember getting that, even if they do nothing, so if anything "occurred" (an unlawful arrest) no worry that the "one you sent it to" just trashed it and says he never got it.

For "County" property I add the County Sheriff and Constable too... County Commissioners, County Judges, Prosecutors, etc ... adjust as needed.... since they are a "subdivision of the State, but not "Municipalities"

By sending it to everyone, and everyone knowing who else got it, it usually becomes "water cooler talk" at City Hall, and gets fixed.

[RPB]

Of course city hall,... may have one legally posted while Council is in session "political meetings"

If that's where they meet.

And apparently so far, they can still regulate "employees" and fire people, through employee policies, even after removing the improper signs ....but they need to remove the signs.

I'm still not a lawyer; my opinion is worth what you paid for it

[Pacifist]

Oh, and BTW, here's a perfect example of why we don't ask questions like this or are extremely careful when we do. Even though the city's posting of these signs is wrong, it could have been any other business. So, in all fairness, since this is Slideman's first post he may not have been lurking around here long enough to have learned this lesson the easy way. Let this be a lesson for those considering doing this.

Exactly what "lesson" is that? That we should demand of every level of government compliance with existing laws? That we, as CHL holders, should refuse to even consider to patronize any business that informs us by any means that it has no respect for the Second Amendment, our safety, nor the safety of our families? That instead of CHL holders being "afraid" of compliant 30.06 signs suddenly appearing at their favorite kiddie pizza joint, business owners should fear the loss of business associated with the posting of the same? C'mon, help me out here, am I on the right track?

[C-dub]

Oh, and BTW, here's a perfect example of why we don't ask questions like this or are extremely careful when we do. Even though the city's posting of these signs is wrong, it could have been any other business. So, in all fairness, since this is Slideman's first post he may not have been lurking around here long enough to have learned this lesson the easy way. Let this be a lesson for those considering doing this.

Exactly what "lesson" is that? That we should demand of every level of government compliance with existing laws? That we, as CHL holders, should refuse to even consider to patronize any business that informs us by any means that it has no respect for the Second Amendment, our safety, nor the safety of our families? That instead of CHL holders being "afraid" of compliant 30.06 signs suddenly appearing at their favorite kiddie pizza joint, business owners should fear the loss of business associated with the posting of the same? C'mon, help me out here, am I on the right track?

If a business has already posted a 30.06 sign there's no downside to questioning their choice. Taco Cabana is a great example of this. They posted 30.06 signs at all or nearly all locations, but after receiving what I can only guess was a high volume of correspondence on the issue took them down.

However, in this instance, there were no 30.06 signs posted prior to the OP's inquiry and the city is so ignorant of the law that they have posted them on city property. Now, the OP is worried that if he brings that fact up to them and they realize who he his that there could be some negative repercussions against him when he is close to a full retirement. The OP is asking us how to go about informing them of their error and realizes that they may have put them up in the first place as a result of his seemingly innocent inquiry about their policy of employees keeping guns in their vehicles while at work.

[C-dub]

Sorry, I forgot the lesson.

If there are no signs or no valid signs don't point it out to them or they may post the correct signs.

[MasterOfNone]

In this case, as an employee, it is understandable that the OP wanted to know the policy that governs his employment, which exists whether or not signs are posted. Perhaps the better lesson here, regarding employer policies, is to ask for all policies governing your employment and look for yourself instead of stating the specific thing you are looking for. Asking about the specific thing may prompt a response to that thing. I remember someone once asking our employer about using cell phones at work (because nothing was stated in the employee manual); within a week a policy restricting cell phone use to break areas was published.

As for the city-posted 30.06 signs, are they actually prohibited from posting them, or are the signs just not enforceable? 30.06 does not state that signs cannot be posted; it only states "(e) It is an exception to the application of this section..."