Dallas Museum of Art

[Tahoe132]

Ok so I am being forced to visit the Dallas Museum of Art next week.... And last time I went, I saw a 30.06 sign posted on the door that looked legal. So I had to walk back to my car and put my gun away. Anyways, when I returned to the building, I went through another entrance which did not have the 30.06 sign posted. So is this legal to carry inside??

I am trying to remember if this would be considered an off limits place with out the 30.06 sign.

[nitrogen]

IIRC, it's govt owned, so 30.06 isnt legal anyway.

[Tahoe132]

Ok I added it.

Any more thoughts on this??

[ClarkLZeuss]

Anyways, when I returned to the building, I went through another entrance which did not have the 30.06 sign posted. So is this legal to carry inside??

The way I understand it, just going through a different entrance does not put you in the clear. Imagine the following courtroom scenario:

Prosecutor: Were you aware at the time that the building was 30.06 posted?
Defendant: The back door wasn't posted.
Prosecutor: That wasn't the question. Did you or did you not see the posting on the front door?

Now, answer "No" to this question, and you've just committed perjury. Answer "Yes" and you've just incriminated yourself. Because although the law says that a building does have to post 30.06 signs in a conspicuous manner, I do not believe it explicitly states that all entrances must be marked. All that matters in your case is whether or not you received "notice."

BTW, I'm not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, just making the point that the law is pretty strict about this. Also, IANAL.

[Liberty]

The way I understand it, just going through a different entrance does not put you in the clear. Imagine the following courtroom scenario:

Prosecutor: Were you aware at the time that the building was 30.06 posted?
Defendant: The back door wasn't posted.
Prosecutor: That wasn't the question. Did you or did you not see the posting on the front door?

Now, answer "No" to this question, and you've just committed perjury. Answer "Yes" and you've just incriminated yourself. Because although the law says that a building does have to post 30.06 signs in a conspicuous manner, I do not believe it explicitly states that all entrances must be marked. All that matters in your case is whether or not you received "notice."

BTW, I'm not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, just making the point that the law is pretty strict about this. Also, IANAL.

What is even mor troublesome i n this scenario is that depending on this defense you may be dependin on the people you are with to purger themselves.

[Keith B]

Your knowledge of a 30.06 sign being posted anywhere on a building makes the building totally off limits. If you do not see the 30.06 sign and enter, you are still breaking the law, you would just have a valid excuse and possibly a defense to prosecution.

And, as said, in this case, if the museum is owned by the city or state, then it can't be legally posted anyway.

[mossytxn]

I went in November to see the King Tut exhibit. No (legal) posting on any door that I passed.

[nitrogen]

The city of dallas owns the building, so the 30.06 posting is invalid.

I just double checked with the central apprasal district.

Code: Select all

   

#	Property Address	       City	        Owner Name / Business Name	Total Value	Type
1 	1717 N HARWOOD ST 	DALLAS 	DALLAS CITY OF 	               $1,324,600 	COMMERCIAL

[ClarkLZeuss]

The city of dallas owns the building, so the 30.06 posting is invalid.

I just double checked with the central apprasal district.

Code: Select all

   

#	Property Address	       City	        Owner Name / Business Name	Total Value	Type
1 	1717 N HARWOOD ST 	DALLAS 	DALLAS CITY OF 	               $1,324,600 	COMMERCIAL

I keep wondering if we should launch a campaign to get signs in situations like this taken down.

[Tahoe132]

Anyways, when I returned to the building, I went through another entrance which did not have the 30.06 sign posted. So is this legal to carry inside??

The way I understand it, just going through a different entrance does not put you in the clear. Imagine the following courtroom scenario:

Prosecutor: Were you aware at the time that the building was 30.06 posted?
Defendant: The back door wasn't posted.
Prosecutor: That wasn't the question. Did you or did you not see the posting on the front door?

Now, answer "No" to this question, and you've just committed perjury. Answer "Yes" and you've just incriminated yourself. Because although the law says that a building does have to post 30.06 signs in a conspicuous manner, I do not believe it explicitly states that all entrances must be marked. All that matters in your case is whether or not you received "notice."

BTW, I'm not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, just making the point that the law is pretty strict about this. Also, IANAL.

You don't sound like a jerk at all, it just helps make your point come across!

I am glad that I asked this, because I thought that if every door was not posted, then it was not valid. But now I understand your point!

Thanks all!!

[Tahoe132]

Ok so I went today... and the sign on the front door is still there but there is no sign on the back door where I entered. As I went out the front door, I took two pictures of it with my cell phone. I wasn't exactly sure if it was one inch, but how does it look to you guys (providing it was not posted on a government building)?

Far View. There was one on both the left side of the doors and this one on the right side of the doors.

Closer View

[Liberty]

Ok so I went today... and the sign on the front door is still there but there is no sign on the back door where I entered. As I went out the front door, I took two pictures of it with my cell phone. I wasn't exactly sure if it was one inch, but how does it look to you guys (providing it was not posted on a government building)?

0402091742a.jpg

Far View. There was one on both the left side of the doors and this one on the right side of the doors.

0402091742.jpg

Closer View

While the issue is moot, because its been established that the museum is on city property. Its likely the sign would not hold up in court, Its not very conspicuous because it is so low, and not contrasting colors. I believe a reasonable person has a likely chance of not noticing the sign while entering the building.

[nitrogen]

An easy way to guess: A quarter is one inch high. If the letters are smaller than a quarter, the sign does not meet the requirements of the law.
I severely doubt those letters are of a height to make the sign legally enforcable, forgetting the fact that the museum is on city property, and the sign is invalid anyway.

Here's a visualisation of just how much of a 30.06 with legal letter height would fit on an 8.5x11 peice of paper:

[rokclimbertx]

City owns, we now know that... Thanks for the research!

But does the museum then lease the property from them? And how does leasing (if they do) affect the city/state owned aspect of the law?