Houston Museum of Natural Science

[iratollah]

UPDATE: HMNS is NOT owned by the city, so they can post it however they choose. They do have some 30.06 language on some of the doors, not a fully compliant sign, but you're now on private property, not city property. Some doors have the warning, some don't.

Concealed is concealed so if you're good enough, try your luck. There is a potential for problems but in theory they should first ask you to leave if you're made.

[seamusTX]

UPDATE: HMNS is NOT owned by the city,

How do you know this?

The city web site lists the museum as an asset.
http://www.houstontx.gov/events/mns.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[JP171]

the building and property are owned by the city, same as the annex in sugarland is owned by the city of sugarland, it is run by the non-profit group incorperated as "Houston Museum of Natural Science". Almost everything on hermann park drive is city owned, and leased out to the occupant

[iratollah]

I had a direct conversation with some key people that it's a common misconception that HMNS has to operate as a city owned facility when it's really operated by a private institution. Landlord is not same as tenant. HMNS is operated by a private foundation and doesn't have to follow the same rules as city, for instance they don't have to allow vagrants in to use their facilities as does the library. If you disagree, I invite you to be the test case.

[Jumping Frog]

I had a direct conversation with some key people that it's a common misconception that HMNS has to operate as a city owned facility when it's really operated by a private institution. Landlord is not same as tenant. HMNS is operated by a private foundation and doesn't have to follow the same rules as city, for instance they don't have to allow vagrants in to use their facilities as does the library. If you disagree, I invite you to be the test case.

When a tenant leases public land, the land is still not legally posted. The prohibition on posting passes onto the tenant. The statute language was quoted in an earlier message in this thread.

[seamusTX]

Agreeing with Jumping Frog, the key question is who owns the real estate. As far as I can tell the City of Houston owns the HMNS (and all of Hermann Park, where the museum is located). It is curiously absent from the HCAD database as a parcel of property.

I invite you to be the test case.

We need to push the edge of the envelope sometimes.

I've been to the HMNS and MFA and Miller Outdoor Theater and the zoo, sometimes more than one on the same day. I experienced no difficulties. Need I say more?

- Jim

[iratollah]

I've been to the HMNS and MFA and Miller Outdoor Theater and the zoo, sometimes more than one on the same day. I experienced no difficulties. Need I say more?

Concealed is concealed, no, you don't need to say more. I regularly go to some places that want guests to think they're posted, I'll make my own decisions, thank you very much. If they discover I'm carrying and ask me to leave I'm not going to start any arguments. HMNS isn't solid enough with their postings, but management there has explained to me that they do not have to follow same rules as a city owned building. They could be mistaken. More relevant is the first three words of this reply.

[seamusTX]

...management there has explained to me that they do not have to follow same rules as a city owned building. They could be mistaken...

I think that they are mistaken. They could just as well post a sign saying, "no Chinese or cripples."

As we have discussed on this forum ad infinitum, there is no legal mechanism for demonstrating the error of their ways to them.

- Jim

[apostate]

...management there has explained to me that they do not have to follow same rules as a city owned building. They could be mistaken...

I think that they are mistaken. They could just as well post a sign saying, "no Chinese or cripples."

...or have a radio ad that says no non-Christian Arabs or Muslims. Wait. Wrong thread?

[theheathster]

My question about HMNS and the zoo is if you visit on a week day during the school year can you still carry. Most likely there will be a organised school group visiting either one of those places.

"on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted"

That's what scares me about the museum and the zoo

[rm9792]

I believe the consensus here is that you arent part of the activity being conducted so you're not held accountable for it anymore than being at McDonald's or a movie

[anygunanywhere]

My question about HMNS and the zoo is if you visit on a week day during the school year can you still carry. Most likely there will be a organised school group visiting either one of those places.

"on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted"

That's what scares me about the museum and the zoo

Don't be skeered. Carry away. Any day. Any time. Alone or with someone. Rain or shine.

Anygunanywhere

[stealthfightrf17]

I had a direct conversation with some key people that it's a common misconception that HMNS has to operate as a city owned facility when it's really operated by a private institution. Landlord is not same as tenant. HMNS is operated by a private foundation and doesn't have to follow the same rules as city, for instance they don't have to allow vagrants in to use their facilities as does the library. If you disagree, I invite you to be the test case.

(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.

If the property is owned by the city, who resides in the building does not matter. They gave up the right to ban concealed carry when they signed a lease with the city.

[JP171]

some people are obtuse, they absolutely refuse to accept the law as opposed to the opinion they hold, let me say it again.

HMS building and ANY building in Hermann Park is CITY OWNED and therefore not able to enforce a 30:06 sign no matter what the company(NPO) that is renting the facility to conduct the business thinks, the City of Houston has advised them. Houston First Corperation has issued a mandate to remove any and ALL signage from city owned building that says anything about CHL being prohibited HFC runs ALL the city theatres and most of the museums. The Soceity of Natural History, Bayou Preservation Society and many others are balking because they believe that they can because of renters rights, but they cannot as the CITY OF HOUSTON still maintains the BUILDING and grounds. so in closing who ever told you from the Natural History Museum NON Profit administrative company that person is, hmm umm WRONG and if you'd like me to open the door I will just to prove it

[Birdie]

Visited the museum today, after dropping a passenger at one of the hospitals in the med center (I didn't go in the hospital). The museum front glass doors have white letters with the old wording, and many of the letters have been scraped off, with some words completely missing. I did not see a proper sign posting at all, but I must have eyeballed all the signs hard enough that I drew attention of those inside, because a security guard was watching me as I entered. I smiled, wished him good morning, and kept going.