Austin ISD sign
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
davefrmmrfy
- Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:14 pm
- Location: Plano, TX
-
seamusTX
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 5
- Posts: 13551
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
- Location: Galveston
Good question.GrillKing wrote:The question for me now is: Are there other instances such as this where 30.06 doesn't apply for gov entities, but some other part of the PC makes it an issue for license holders?
PC §46.035(i) says that hospitals, churches, and amusement parks must be posted to be off-limits.
If a municipality owned an amusement park that met the other conditions (in a county of more than 1 million population, etc.), IMHO that would be a valid posting.
Municipalities don't generally own churches, but sometimes congregations rent facilities from municipalities. In that casey, the premises could also be posted, IMHO.
- Jim
-
barres
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 5
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:58 pm
- Location: Prison City, Texas
No. They have lawyers to keep the district from doing something that would get them sued successfully or doing something illegal. Since there is no penalty for posting unnecessary and flawed signs, the lawyer doesn't care.davefrmmrfy wrote:You can point to the administrators, but, don't these districts have LAWYERS whose job it is to keep this kind of stuff from happening?
Remember, in a life-or-death situation, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Barre
Barre