TexasCHLforum.com

My lady and I wanted to go see the Van Gogh: Sheaves of Wheat exhibit at Dallas Museum of Art today.

No signs posted anywhere. (The 30.06 signs that have been reported there in the past were not evident)

So we go to enter. At the door, museum personel attempt to search my lady and I. They want to look in her purse, and they want to pat me down. I figure, "what the heck, this could be interesting" so I allow it. Of course, they find a "bulge."

"Sir, what is that?"

I figure i'll be a pain, as I'm already annoyed, and ready to walk out the door anyway. So is she; she is denying them access to her purse.
"I cannot inform you as it might violate Texas law."
"ARE YOU CARRYING A WEAPON!!!???"
"Sir. As I said, I cannot inform you as it might violate Texas law."
"WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE, WE DON'T ALLOW WEAPONS IN HERE!"

So we left. After that, I had no willingness to spend $32 on this place, nor do I wish to return.

So beware: If you go to the Dallas museum of art, you might get hassled for a search.

Not real sure what it is about a lot of the art museums around the DFW area, but they really aren't gun friendly.

As an art history minor in college, I still really love to go to these places, but most of them are very anti-gun, and it does prove to be a bit of a deterrent.

What's the deal?

There have been a number of incidents where nutcases damaged works of art. Probably the museums' lawyers told them to ban weapons.

- Jim

OK, so if I understand this correctly, they wanted to pat YOU down and search your lady friend's bag.

Looks like the answer to this is, your lady needs to carry on-body, and you need to get a man purse!

Seriously, come to think of it, I have been ASKED if I had a weapon, but I have NEVER been patted down. Never, not once. I guess the ladies finally get to have an advantage in the gun toting department!

I'd write a letter to the Dallas Museum of Art, or it's governing body. I'd be very politic in saying I understand they may wish to exclude Texas CHL holders from their premises: people who have undergone a very rigorous DPS and FBI background check, and about whom they should probably be least concerned entering their doors.

And I would continue that, based on your experience, if their intent really is to bar the admission of stalwart citizens whose character and rights are affirmed by the governments of the state of Texas and the United States of America, they should be cognizant of the prevailing law and post the state-mandated notice.

Or, just don't carry into the museum.

Nitro, we went to see the Tiffani show and there is a 30.06 at the parking garage entrance and also one on the front doors.

Here's the catch, the one on the front door is ankle high all the way over to the left.

The one at the parking garage would face the drivers side door as you pull through the gate.

I don't think either sign is of the correct size nor would I concider them conspicuous. I know this because I did not carry and took a very long time looking!

cyphur wrote:Or, just don't carry into the museum.

I don't go places that don't let me carrying, excepting airports really.

Of course, one wonders if the Dallas museum of art is owned by the city of Dallas.

Interesting story.

This sounds like a challenge to me. I bet they might not even find a snubbie with a pat down.

lrb111 wrote:Of course, one wonders if the Dallas museum of art is owned by the city of Dallas.

Looking at the DMA's history, I find these tidbits:

A contract transferring ownership of the art to the city was signed in March of 1909, and the gallery was formally opened and presented to the city of Dallas in April 1909.

1927 A city bond issue passed, providing $500,000 in city bonds for building and equipping a new Museum facility

1934–1935 The Depression caused the city to cut the Museum's budget to $5,500 per year. City bonds worth $500,000 were sold to build a new Museum facility in Fair Park.

1979 A city bond election was passed and Dallas voters pledged $24.8 million toward the construction of a new museum building downtown.

1984 The name was changed to the Dallas Museum of Art when the Museum moved to its new location downtown.

According to the tax records, 1717 N. Harwood is owned by the City of Dallas.

I'm also sure that the DMA Board of Trustees feels differently, even if Dallas does own the buildings. But, bottom line, any 30.06 postings they make cannot be enforced legally.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

lrb111 wrote:Of course, one wonders if the Dallas museum of art is owned by the city of Dallas.

Looking at the DMA's history, I find these tidbits:

A contract transferring ownership of the art to the city was signed in March of 1909, and the gallery was formally opened and presented to the city of Dallas in April 1909.

1927 A city bond issue passed, providing $500,000 in city bonds for building and equipping a new Museum facility

1934–1935 The Depression caused the city to cut the Museum's budget to $5,500 per year. City bonds worth $500,000 were sold to build a new Museum facility in Fair Park.

1979 A city bond election was passed and Dallas voters pledged $24.8 million toward the construction of a new museum building downtown.

1984 The name was changed to the Dallas Museum of Art when the Museum moved to its new location downtown.

According to the tax records, 1717 N. Harwood is owned by the City of Dallas.

I'm also sure that the DMA Board of Trustees feels differently, even if Dallas does own the buildings. But, bottom line, any 30.06 postings they make cannot be enforced legally.

Kevin

now that is funny, to me!

llwatson wrote:OK, so if I understand this correctly, they wanted to pat YOU down and search your lady friend's bag.

Looks like the answer to this is, your lady needs to carry on-body, and you need to get a man purse!

Or a smart carry/thunderwear.

KBCraig wrote: I'm also sure that the DMA Board of Trustees feels differently, even if Dallas does own the buildings. But, bottom line, any 30.06 postings they make cannot be enforced legally.

Kevin

Agreed, but here is the quandary. The law does not say that governments cannot prohibit CHL's from entering. It says that if they post 30.06 you are not obligated to obey it.

If they wand you or pat you down and discover the weapon, they can deny you entrance based on verbal notice under 30.05. Having a CHL is only a defense to prosecution under 30.05, meaning you can be arrested for trespass if you refuse to leave after being told to leave.

I mean, whaddya gonna do? They pat you and find the weapon and tell you you can't bring it in. You (I mean you in general terms, not you specifically Kevin) tell them they can't deny you, you know your rights, you might violate the law if you answer their questions (I'll address that later) and try to enter anyway. They then stop you, physically. Are you going to resist? If so, plan on being a guest of the Dallas County Jail that day


And the entire "being a pain". That damages the reputation of all CHL holders when you argue and make statements like "I might be violating the law if I tell you". Not only is it absurd, it sounds lunitical.

Its their place, their rules. All you accomplish by acting like that at the moment is convince them that they are right about "us", and solidifies their decision to prohibit CHL holders who are carrying. You cannot win during the moment.

Not only that, you are harassing an employee who does not set policy. He/she is trying to do a job.

edit: I won't even bother.

As they say, arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics: it doesn't matter if you win, you're still, err, you know.