Possibly a different approach?

[KD5NRH]

Stephenville Code of Ordinances 130.28 CONCEALED HANDGUNS AT PUBLIC FACILITIES PROHIBITED.
(A) It is hereby declared unlawful for any person, whether licensed to carry a concealed handgun or not, to carry a concealed handgun into any building owned, leased or under the control of the city or any related entity of the city, or any public facility owned, leased or under the control of the city or any related entity of the city. The term “public facility” includes, but is not limited to, buildings, swimming pools, restroom facilities, transit vehicles, park pavilions, ballparks, grandstand areas, concession areas, libraries, recreation centers and senior citizen centers. This section does not apply to peace officers as defined in Tex. Criminal Procedures Code, Art. 2.12, parking lots, streets, sidewalks and public easements.
(B) The City Administrator is hereby authorized to have signs posted at buildings and public facilities owned, leased or under the control of the city prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns into the building or at the public facility.
(C) Any person who carries a concealed handgun into any building or at any public facility owned, leased or under the control of the city after receiving notice that the same is prohibited commits a criminal trespass under Tex. Penal Code § 30.05 and is subject to prosecution of such offense in accordance with said section.

Now, the ordinance as a whole is pretty much invalid under the defense to prosecution in 30.05(f) and the city property exception in 30.06(e). The city uses the standard form (AW2-15, Rev 9/07) for council members to apply for their place on the ballot, so each has signed an oath to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Texas" before they were even able to run for election. (I don't have the text of the swearing-in oath handy, and four of the eight members were elected since the last revision of that form, but I'm assuming they signed something similar.)

My thought was, rather than trying to deal with this via the open records request route, to just approach council members with a (very) gentle reminder of their oath, and that it would be in keeping with that oath to remove an ordinance from the books which is directly counter to the intent of state law. Any ideas on wording, or am I just planning to waste some paper here?

[Kythas]

Texas is a pre-emption state, which means local municipalities may not make laws which pre-empt state laws on the carrying of concealed weapons. Since state law states that CHL holders cannot be barred from government owned or leased facilities, the city ordinance has no effect:

Local Government Code § 229.001. Firearms; Explosives
(a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping,
transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:
(1) require residents or public employees to be armed for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or
another lawful purpose;
(2) regulate the discharge of firearms within the limits of the municipality;
(3) regulate the use of property, the location of a business, or uses at a business under the municipality's fire
code, zoning ordinance, or land-use regulations as long as the code, ordinance, or regulations are not used to
circumvent the intent of Subsection (a) or Subdivision (5) of this subsection;
(4) regulate the use of firearms in the case of an insurrection, riot, or natural disaster if the municipality finds
the regulations necessary to protect public health and safety;
(5) regulate the storage or transportation of explosives to protect public health and safety, except that 25
pounds or less of black powder for each private
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun
under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.
(c) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(6) does not apply if the firearm is in or is carried to or from an
area designated for use in a lawful hunting,

This tells me that municipalities can regulate the carrying of firearms by persons not licensed by the State, but cannot regulate the carrying of firearms by people with a CHL.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[KD5NRH]

Texas is a pre-emption state, which means local municipalities may not make laws which pre-empt state laws on the carrying of concealed weapons. Since state law states that CHL holders cannot be barred from government owned or leased facilities, the city ordinance has no effect:

Local Government Code § 229.001. Firearms; Explosives
(a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping,
transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:
<SNIP>
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun
under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.
(c) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(6) does not apply if the firearm is in or is carried to or from an
area designated for use in a lawful hunting,

Thanks! I knew I was missing another point there, but for some reason the LGC was slipping my mind while I was searching for it. This more directly conflicts, and thereby (to my mind at least) makes it more incompatible with the oath to maintain the ordinance.

[dicion]

Are these ordinances posted anywhere? Like at the entrances of public buildings?

If so, I'd print some pages with both 229.001(a) and 30.06(e) on them, take some scotch tape, and properly inform the public in the same manner that this ordinance attempts to improperly inform them

[KD5NRH]

Are these ordinances posted anywhere? Like at the entrances of public buildings?

Not that I've found, though there may be some mentions in the rules signs in the rec center and other places that have long lists of generally-ignored rules.

While I'm thinking about it, here's another approach on holding them to their oaths: The Texas Constitution, article one, section 23 states, "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." Though that power isn't specifically reserved to the state legislature, the fact that it is granted specifically implies that it is not inherent in any governing body, and thus needs to be granted or delegated for a body to exercise it. Since LGC 229 makes it pretty clear that the legislature does not intend to delegate power to municipalities to regulate carry by license holders, the ordinance in question could be seen as an attempt to usurp a power specifically reserved by the legislature. Any lawyers want to attack that one?

Out of curiosity, does "another law" exist under which a municipality could regulate carry (other than purely by enforcement of the state laws) by unlicensed persons, as mentioned in LGC229?

[surprise_i'm_armed]

KD5NRH:

If you are up for it, I would think a letter-writing campgign on your part, detailing all
relevant arguments made in this thread, should be enough to get this foolishness
overturned. Educating the evildoers pushing these restrictions, by quoting the
Texas pre-emption rule, should be sufficient.

Of course, at any time that you may be on the disputed premises, you will have to
be unarmed in order to avoid a bad arrest.

I find it very curious that this sort of restrictive, illegal posting should occur in
Stephenville. IIRC, Stephenville is a rodeo capital, and not a place prone to have
carpetbagger Yankees move in for a while, get elected to public posts, and upset
the apple cart of responsible gun ownership.

I'm just sayin....

SIA

[KD5NRH]

If you are up for it, I would think a letter-writing campgign on your part, detailing all relevant arguments made in this thread, should be enough to get this foolishness overturned.

I printed up a few sheets with the ordinance and LGC229 on the front, with the relevant bits highlighted, and the council members' contact info on the back, and handed a few to known CHLs, and a stack to one of the local CHL instructors. Tonight is the first council meeting since I did that, and I suspect at least one of those guys will be there to voice his opinion.

I've pretty much decided to sit it out and watch tonight, to see what the mood is, and if it looks like we just need more numbers, I'll be improving the handout and getting some to all the other instructors in the area. The last election included a "landslide victory" of a whole 700 votes, so it shouldn't take a huge showing to get them to listen. (council chambers will only hold maybe 30-40 people, so packing them should be easy if we need to)

I find it very curious that this sort of restrictive, illegal posting should occur in Stephenville. IIRC, Stephenville is a rodeo capital, and not a place prone to have carpetbagger Yankees move in for a while, get elected to public posts, and upsetcthe apple cart of responsible gun ownership.

Unfortunately, it's also a college town, and Tarleton employees make it onto the council way too often. That's why we went from running in the black to having a $4 million debt because certain busybodies wanted a waterpark rather than just replacing the pool.

[nils]

...very interesting situation here....

[KD5NRH]

No mention of it at this meeting, but I talked with one of the council members who had only gotten a general mention of it, and wanted to do some more research before he brought it up. The next regular session is in two weeks, so if I don't see some action then, I'll start the full action with handouts for all the instructors in the area to distribute to their current and former students.

[KD5NRH]

FWIW, the process is moving along a bit, though things have been delayed due to the city attorney being incapacitated by a car wreck. A council member I hadn't approached previously took an immediate and very strong interest in the issue, (hmm...wonder if I should ask the CHL instructors if any of them happen to know why Mr Relatively Quiet Guy turned into Patrick Henry when he read the ordinance ) and it should be addressed at the Public Health and Safety Committee meeting in January. With a little luck, the council vote to repeal the ordinance altogether could happen in February.

[G36Packer]

I hope it goes well.

One of the Tyler health facilities has a city ordinance posted on the front door that clearly contradicts state law. I don't have a dog in that fight, but would like to see any such ordinances overturned.

[KD5NRH]

UPDATE: the Public Health and Safety Committee meeting that it was supposed to be discussed at got postponed, but should be happening next week.

Got an email from the Police Chief. He says that he is recommending that they repeal the ordinance completely, since the only part he can enforce (unlicensed carry) is redundant with state law. With any luck, the PH&S Committee will pass that on to the full Council for a vote March 2nd.

Never had much of an opinion either way on the Chief until this, and then today's paper has the announcement he'll be retiring this summer.

[KD5NRH]

The Committee meeting was tonight. Chief spoke in favor of repealing the ordinance entirely, and the Public Health and Safety Committee voted unanimously to recommend repeal of that section to the full Council at the next meeting, March 2nd.

That's four (out of eight total) Council members on the committee, no comments from the others present (and several were in a talkative mood regarding everything else on the agenda) one other that I know of who favors the same, so no reason to believe that it won't pass easily. With any luck, we're two weeks from having one less unenforceable handgun ban in this state.

[Sewer_Ice]

UPDATE: the Public Health and Safety Committee meeting that it was supposed to be discussed at got postponed, but should be happening next week.

Got an email from the Police Chief. He says that he is recommending that they repeal the ordinance completely, since the only part he can enforce (unlicensed carry) is redundant with state law. With any luck, the PH&S Committee will pass that on to the full Council for a vote March 2nd.

Never had much of an opinion either way on the Chief until this, and then today's paper has the announcement he'll be retiring this summer.

At least the police chief is one of the good guys. I'm sure in many municipalities the police chief would enforce the law, even though they truly can't.
Has the police chief instructed his officers on this law? Do they know it is unenforceable? If so, I wouldn't worry about carrying, just keep pushing to get it repealed.

[cougartex]

Are these ordinances posted anywhere? Like at the entrances of public buildings?

If so, I'd print some pages with both 229.001(a) and 30.06(e) on them, take some scotch tape, and properly inform the public in the same manner that this ordinance attempts to improperly inform them

The City of Port Arthur has a similar ordinance. A sign is posted at the city library.