rokclimbertx wrote: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?
PC §30.06 wrote:
TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(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.
It says if the property is owned by a governmental entity not otherwise prohibited, PC §30.06 is excepted. Doesn't matter who may or may not lease the property from the governmental entity, since a landlord cannot grant tenants rights to the property that he does not have himself. If the government cannot bar CHL'ers from carrying, then they cannot grant the ability to do so to anyone that leases the property (that they own) from them. Otherwise the exception would be moot, because all the governmental entities would lease their facilities for nothing to someone (any management company that saw things the way the governmental entity wanted them to see things) so that those facilities could be legally (enforceably) posted.
Remember, in a life-or-death situation, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Barre
