The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Texas Game Wardens can enforce relevant Fed Law on lakes and rivers. And they do.Liberty wrote:The preemption laws would take precedence over these rules, but if the property is actually owned by the Army Corp of Engineers It would be illegal to carry there. I've never heard of the local agencies enforcing the Feds rules though.
I think at best they can hope their regulation is allowed to stand, but it's still not clear what they will be able to do to enforce it. Throw you out of the park (physically) and not face battery charges...KLB wrote:Now that I've read the request for opinion, I still don't know what the AG will say, but LNRA's argument is not frivolous on its face. Two different statutes in apparent conflict have to be reconciled. These things have to be worked out.
What LNRA thinks it's accomplishing, on the on the other hand, is hard for me to see. This can't be a big problem. I regularly visit Hallettsville, which is just up the road from Lake Texana, and I've yet to see anyone open carrying.
Updated: Here's a provision from the Code Construction Act:
In this case, the general provision (local governments can't rely on 30.06) is more recent that the specific one (river authorities can regulate despite rules to the contrary). It's easy to interpret the river authority statute as being an exception to the carry statute. That works under (a) or (b) unless a court finds that the legislature manifestly intended that the carry statute prevail. Maybe there's legislative history on that. I don't know.Sec. 311.026. SPECIAL OR LOCAL PROVISION PREVAILS OVER GENERAL. (a) If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, the provisions shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both.
(b) If the conflict between the general provision and the special or local provision is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.
I have not researched LNRA's authorizing statutes, but my guess is that they have authority to enforce their own rules, probably more or less as cities do. A city can make something a Class C misdemeanor.ScottDLS wrote:I think at best they can hope their regulation is allowed to stand, but it's still not clear what they will be able to do to enforce it. Throw you out of the park (physically) and not face battery charges... :???
Nice read, thanks for posting the link!ELB wrote:The AG says "no".
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... &utm_term=