City Owned Convention Centers

[rexinthecity]

I was at a convention last weekend that was held at the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center in San Antonio. According to my research the convention center is owned by the city of San Antonio therefore they can not post 30.06 and 30.07 signs. I'm assuming they know this since no signs were permanently attached to the building. What I did notice on my way out the first day was that someone, I'm assuming the event staff, had placed stands that had 30.06 signs on one side and 30.07 signs on the other.

1) Is there any precedence that allows someone renting a city building to post 30.06 and 30.07 signs?
2) Are temporary signs valid?

San Antonio's finest were there providing security and using the stands as leaning posts half the time

-R

[JP171]

Rex, did you take pic so that you can send the notification to the city? because it is not allowed to be posted period, there are about half a gazillion threads here about this very thing. The law is quite clear a building owned or leased by a subdivision of the state(city, county) cannot be posted and is punishable by a fine

[Charles L. Cotton]

The only fact that matters in terms of the application of Tex. Penal Code §30.06(e) or §30.07(e) is whether the property is owned or leased by a governmental agency. If the answer to that question is "yes," then the property cannot be posted with 30.06 sign without violating the law. A 30.07 sign is not enforceable, but there is no penalty for doing so.

Chas.

[mr1337]

Of course, this comes with the exception that if the location is a statutorily prohibited, the government entity can post the signs.

For instance, if a collegiate/professional sporting event or school sponsored activity were on-going at the location, they would be allowed to post the sign, legally.

However, at a convention, those prohibitions do not apply, and the city cannot legally post the signs. If the signs are posted illegally, they are not enforceable.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Of course, this comes with the exception that if the location is a statutorily prohibited, the government entity can post the signs.

For instance, if a collegiate/professional sporting event or school sponsored activity were on-going at the location, they would be allowed to post the sign, legally.

I respectfully disagree. While some people in school administration argue this, the language in Tex. Penal Code §46.03(a)(1) that prohibits carrying on grounds where a school-sponsored activity is ongoing, also contains the phrase "unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution; . . ." By necessity, this must limit the prohibition to property owned by the school because the school does not have the authority to allow persons to carry firearms on property owned by another person or entity. This has been my argument for decades and the AG just used the same logic and analysis in AG Opinion KP-47 dealing with the scope of the authority to prohibit handguns in court buildings. Specifically, the Opinion stated:

• "Further, when considering the statute as a whole, under subsection 46.03(a)(3) a court may
  issue written regulations or provide authorization concerning the allowance of firearms on its
  premises. See TEX. PENAL CODE§ 46.03(a)(3) (establishing an offense for carrying a prohibited
  weapon "on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant
  to written regulations or authorization of the court"). A court's authority with regard to such
  regulations or authorization would not include areas of the building that are beyond the operations
  of the court. This is some indication that the Legislature intended the prohibition in subsection
  46.03(a)(3) to have a limited reach."

Though the subject matter in KP-47 was different, the operative language was identical and the logic applies to school events off-campus as well.
Chas.

[mr1337]

Of course, this comes with the exception that if the location is a statutorily prohibited, the government entity can post the signs.

For instance, if a collegiate/professional sporting event or school sponsored activity were on-going at the location, they would be allowed to post the sign, legally.

I respectfully disagree. While some people in school administration argue this, the language in Tex. Penal Code §46.03(a)(1) that prohibits carrying on grounds where a school-sponsored activity is ongoing, also contains the phrase "unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution; . . ." By necessity, this must limit the prohibition to property owned by the school because the school does not have the authority to allow persons to carry firearms on property owned by another person or entity. This has been my argument for decades and the AG just used the same logic and analysis in AG Opinion KP-47 dealing with the scope of the authority to prohibit handguns in court buildings. Specifically, the Opinion stated:

• "Further, when considering the statute as a whole, under subsection 46.03(a)(3) a court may
  issue written regulations or provide authorization concerning the allowance of firearms on its
  premises. See TEX. PENAL CODE§ 46.03(a)(3) (establishing an offense for carrying a prohibited
  weapon "on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant
  to written regulations or authorization of the court"). A court's authority with regard to such
  regulations or authorization would not include areas of the building that are beyond the operations
  of the court. This is some indication that the Legislature intended the prohibition in subsection
  46.03(a)(3) to have a limited reach."

Though the subject matter in KP-47 was different, the operative language was identical and the logic applies to school events off-campus as well.
Chas.

Good point, never thought of that.