Does "No weapons" mean "No CHL"?

[sugar land dave]

I seem to remember reading an Attorney General opinion from several years ago. It stated his thoughts that although a municipality could not regulate chl carry in city parks, counties could perhaps regulate chl carry in the county parks. Sorry, I do not have a link handy.

Since no one noted my previous post, I went and looked it up for everyone:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... .HTM#rapid

Prohibition of hanguns on rapid transportation and in city parks


August 30, 1995
Honorable Ron Wilson
Chair

Licensing and Administrative Procedures
House of Representatives
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Opinion No. DM-364

...In answer to your third and last question, we believe that a municipality does not have the power to prohibit licensees from carrying handguns in city parks but that a county does have such power over county parks.

...Neither the concealed handgun law nor any other statute has restricted a county's police power over its parks under section 331.007 of the Local Government Code. We believe that section 331.007 permits the "governing body of a [county] park" to adopt a rule providing for the exclusion or ejection of persons carrying handguns from a county park if such a rule is reasonably necessary and appropriate for the accomplishment of a legitimate object falling within the county's police power under section 331.007. See Falfurrias Creamery Co. v. City of Laredo, 276 S.W.2d at 353.

...A county has the power to adopt a rule providing for the exclusion or ejection of persons carrying handguns from county parks if such a rule is reasonably necessary and appropriate for the accomplishment of a legitimate object falling within the county's police power under section 331.007 of the Local Government Code. The reasonableness and necessity of a measure taken under the county's police power is, in the first instance, a matter within the county's discretion. The courts would not disturb a county's regulation of handguns in county parks unless the regulation were clearly shown to be unreasonable and arbitrary.

Yours very truly,

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

JORGE VEGA
First Assistant Attorney General

SARAH J. SHIRLEY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by James B. Pinson
Assistant Attorney General


This is still on the DPS CHL website and has apparently not been superseded .

[BrianSW99]

I seem to remember reading an Attorney General opinion from several years ago. It stated his thoughts that although a municipality could not regulate chl carry in city parks, counties could perhaps regulate chl carry in the county parks. Sorry, I do not have a link handy.

Since no one noted my previous post, I went and looked it up for everyone:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... .HTM#rapid

Prohibition of hanguns on rapid transportation and in city parks


August 30, 1995
Honorable Ron Wilson
Chair

Licensing and Administrative Procedures
House of Representatives
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Opinion No. DM-364

...In answer to your third and last question, we believe that a municipality does not have the power to prohibit licensees from carrying handguns in city parks but that a county does have such power over county parks.

...Neither the concealed handgun law nor any other statute has restricted a county's police power over its parks under section 331.007 of the Local Government Code. We believe that section 331.007 permits the "governing body of a [county] park" to adopt a rule providing for the exclusion or ejection of persons carrying handguns from a county park if such a rule is reasonably necessary and appropriate for the accomplishment of a legitimate object falling within the county's police power under section 331.007. See Falfurrias Creamery Co. v. City of Laredo, 276 S.W.2d at 353.

...A county has the power to adopt a rule providing for the exclusion or ejection of persons carrying handguns from county parks if such a rule is reasonably necessary and appropriate for the accomplishment of a legitimate object falling within the county's police power under section 331.007 of the Local Government Code. The reasonableness and necessity of a measure taken under the county's police power is, in the first instance, a matter within the county's discretion. The courts would not disturb a county's regulation of handguns in county parks unless the regulation were clearly shown to be unreasonable and arbitrary.

Yours very truly,

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

JORGE VEGA
First Assistant Attorney General

SARAH J. SHIRLEY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by James B. Pinson
Assistant Attorney General


This is still on the DPS CHL website and has apparently not been superseded .

That opinion is from 1995, when the original CHL law went into effect. I believe at that time, government entities could post a 30.06 sign (did they even have 30.06 at that time? I think any sign was valid.) and restrict CHLs from carrying. Since then they've added the section that says 30.06 doesn't apply on government property. The DPS website has alot of outdated information that is now wrong. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't take that opinion at face value.

[G.A. Heath]

As stated that opinion is from 1995, state pre-emption of most firearms laws has since passed making that AG opinion meaningless. Additionally 30.06 did not exist back then.

[Pawpaw]

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code, on property of another without effective
consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the
owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the
owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section
46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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.

[snorri]

Pawpaw hit the nail on the head. They may be able (in practice) to exclude you if they have controlled access with searches, but it's not illegal to carry there unless it's a 51% location or other prohibited place.

[sugar land dave]

IANAL, but if the AG opinion above has no meaning, why would the DPS post it on their website? Scare tactics? I don't think they are posting it for no reason. I know we all want to carry any where our hearts desire, but I do not believe any of us should think of State law in the same manner as spiritual law:

1 Corinthians 6-12 "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."

If you read the complete AG opinion at the DPS website, it suggested that the county could enforce the matter and leave it to the test of the courts which the then Ag believed most county rules would survive. Worst case scenario is the opinion says that someone breaking the rule would be denied entry or made to leave, no suggestion of a fine or criminal penalty.

Call me conservative I guess.

[G.A. Heath]

A county, city, or other entity can enforce anything they want while leaving it to the courts and it would be unwise for them to do so when the state pre-empts their authority on the matter. The AG opinion you reference that is on the DPS website happens to be from 1995. Texas pre-emption was passed in 2007 if I am not mistaken and would override that language. I don't have the pre-emption statute in front of me. Why does the DPS leave an old AG opinion on their website? perhaps it is left there because portions of it are still important, or for archival purposes. Should someone, like Mr. Cotton, who knows the law (meaning an attorney) say I'm wrong then I will gladly admit that I am wrong and move on. However I have been led to believe that Texas preempts all firearms laws within its political subdivisions with some very minor exceptions (primarily discharge of firearms).

[Skiprr]

IANAL, but if the AG opinion above has no meaning, why would the DPS post it on their website?

IMHO, DPS posted it simply because it exists and because it was an opinion related to carrying a handgun. That this opinion was rendered eight legislative sessions ago doesn’t factor into, again IMHO, DPS’s choice to post it on the Website.

BTW, the actual letter from Dan Morales can be viewed as a PDF file here.

Neither the Texas Government Code nor Texas Penal Code read today as it did in August 1995. And there will be changes again come September.

I know I get verbose. Let me near a keyboard, and I’ll keep punching at it. So I realize my earlier post is history. But since you’re in Sugar Land, I’ll ask:

Do you realize that over half of the county/city parks, by acreage, in the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown statistical metropolitan area reside on property owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and are therefore subject to U.S. Title 36, Chapter III, Part 327?

Just askin’.

[sugar land dave]

I am not trying to argue with anyone here. I consider CHL holders to be honest and largely competent people. I do find curiosities in some things such as the DPS website. It really is not a very large site if you remove the chl status database section, therefor I find it unusual that an AG opinion from so very long ago is prominent on their site. In many ways the opinion was quite nebulous, allowing quite a bit of latitude for government.

I also think most of us are old enough to realize that some laws can be enforced differently in different areas of the state. Differences in LEO's, DA's, and Judges provide opportunity for that statement to be so.

I come to this forum to explore new ideas as well as the tried and true. I would welcome the thoughts of one of the lawyers, but recognize that even then it would be an opinion. I believe that is one of the reasons they "try" cases.

Regarding Houston area parks, I do not know the specific parks, but expect that the larger ones would fall under the Corp of Engineers. I also suspect such areas would be near designated watershed regions of the counties.

[Bullwhip]

Yours very truly,

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

DAN MORALES
Convicted Felon

[speedsix]

I am not trying to argue with anyone here. I consider CHL holders to be honest and largely competent people. I do find curiosities in some things such as the DPS website. It really is not a very large site if you remove the chl status database section, therefor I find it unusual that an AG opinion from so very long ago is prominent on their site. In many ways the opinion was quite nebulous, allowing quite a bit of latitude for government.

I also think most of us are old enough to realize that some laws can be enforced differently in different areas of the state. Differences in LEO's, DA's, and Judges provide opportunity for that statement to be so.

I come to this forum to explore new ideas as well as the tried and true. I would welcome the thoughts of one of the lawyers, but recognize that even then it would be an opinion. I believe that is one of the reasons they "try" cases.

Regarding Houston area parks, I do not know the specific parks, but expect that the larger ones would fall under the Corp of Engineers. I also suspect such areas would be near designated watershed regions of the counties.

...I think this place is FOR arguing and debating...if we were a bunch of bobble-heads and "Oh, Yeahs"...it wouldn't be any fun...

[sugar land dave]

I am not trying to argue with anyone here. I consider CHL holders to be honest and largely competent people. I do find curiosities in some things such as the DPS website. It really is not a very large site if you remove the chl status database section, therefor I find it unusual that an AG opinion from so very long ago is prominent on their site. In many ways the opinion was quite nebulous, allowing quite a bit of latitude for government.

I also think most of us are old enough to realize that some laws can be enforced differently in different areas of the state. Differences in LEO's, DA's, and Judges provide opportunity for that statement to be so.

I come to this forum to explore new ideas as well as the tried and true. I would welcome the thoughts of one of the lawyers, but recognize that even then it would be an opinion. I believe that is one of the reasons they "try" cases.

Regarding Houston area parks, I do not know the specific parks, but expect that the larger ones would fall under the Corp of Engineers. I also suspect such areas would be near designated watershed regions of the counties.

...I think this place is FOR arguing and debating...if we were a bunch of bobble-heads and "Oh, Yeahs"...it wouldn't be any fun...

Were we arguing? I thought we were civilly discussing our differences of opinion!

[speedsix]

...you're conservative...you use all those fancy words...I'm more of a radical...I just argue ... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sugar land dave]

...you're conservative...you use all those fancy words...I'm more of a radical...I just argue ... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, I've been called worse.

[speedsix]

...Toyota!!!