TexasCHLforum.com

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

seamusTX wrote:In a condominium, each unit owner owns an undivided interest in the underlying land and common areas.

- Jim

Not to be a stickler, but what about the 2nd or 3rd floor condo?

Right. Or in the case of the newer Austin developments, a 20th floor condo in a mixed-use high-rise.

And as Chas just posted, the law only states that if the property is owned or leased by the governmental entity (and not off limits under other secions of the law, such as a courthouse), 30.06 is not applicable.

So, as the law is so clear, what would it take to get the problems people are having with the various stadiums that are owned by city governments? My guess would be that it would take an answer from the AG or a lawsuit to get these places to stop illegally enforcing carry restrictions.

NcongruNt wrote: And as Chas just posted, the law only states that if the property is owned or leased by the governmental entity (and not off limits under other secions of the law, such as a courthouse), 30.06 is not applicable.

But does "owned by a governmental entity" supercede "leased by a private corporation?"

DoubleActionCHL wrote:But does "owned by a governmental entity" supercede "leased by a private corporation?"

There is some difference of opinion on that one around these parts. The majority feel that you read the law the way it is written and that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is owned by a governmental agency. And that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is leased by a governmental agency. Either one is enough to render a 30.06 sign unenforceable.

Kalrog wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:But does "owned by a governmental entity" supercede "leased by a private corporation?"

There is some difference of opinion on that one around these parts. The majority feel that you read the law the way it is written and that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is owned by a governmental agency. And that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is leased by a governmental agency. Either one is enough to render a 30.06 sign unenforceable.

Furthermore, speaking on principle...
If a corporation is going to rake in huge profits using tax money to build the facility in which they operate, they deserve no special rights. That stadium is public property. If they want to restrict carry under the law, they ought to pony up their own dough instead of riding on the backs of taxpayers while whipping them at the same time. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. At least that's how I see it.

NcongruNt wrote:

Kalrog wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:But does "owned by a governmental entity" supercede "leased by a private corporation?"

There is some difference of opinion on that one around these parts. The majority feel that you read the law the way it is written and that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is owned by a governmental agency. And that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is leased by a governmental agency. Either one is enough to render a 30.06 sign unenforceable.

Furthermore, speaking on principle...
If a corporation is going to rake in huge profits using tax money to build the facility in which they operate, they deserve no special rights. That stadium is public property. If they want to restrict carry under the law, they ought to pony up their own dough instead of riding on the backs of taxpayers while whipping them at the same time. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. At least that's how I see it.

Except for the fact that, aside from the land, The Hobby Center was built with private donations raised by Houston Music Hall Foundations.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:

Kalrog wrote:
There is some difference of opinion on that one around these parts. The majority feel that you read the law the way it is written and that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is owned by a governmental agency. And that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is leased by a governmental agency. Either one is enough to render a 30.06 sign unenforceable.

Furthermore, speaking on principle...
If a corporation is going to rake in huge profits using tax money to build the facility in which they operate, they deserve no special rights. That stadium is public property. If they want to restrict carry under the law, they ought to pony up their own dough instead of riding on the backs of taxpayers while whipping them at the same time. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. At least that's how I see it.

Except for the fact that, aside from the land, The Hobby Center was built with private donations raised by Houston Music Hall Foundations.

While this is a much less extreme case, the fact remains that the land is city-owned and therefore funded by the taxpayers. The Music Hall Foundation does not have to pay taxes on the land or deal with any of the responsibilities required when owning land. Because of the advantages afforded to them by this arrangement, they have to deal with portions of the law applicable to those who operate on government-owned land.

It's the arts! What do you want????

DoubleActionCHL wrote:It's the arts! What do you want????

Tolerance.

boomerang wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:It's the arts! What do you want????

Tolerance.

Everybody knows that's a one-way street.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

boomerang wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:It's the arts! What do you want????

Tolerance.

Everybody knows that's a one-way street.

Sadly, that seems to be the case. I don't try to restrict their First Amendment speech but they won't give my Second Amendment arms the same courtesy.

Well how was the show?

anygunanywhere wrote:Enjoyed the show. Language was strong but the music was great.

After Mrs. Anygun and I critiqued the show over an adult beverage we concluded that it was not as good as "Mama Mia". The Four Seasons had a little more problematic past than I believe was typical of folks at the time, but since I did not grow up in New Jersey I can not be sure. We did pick up a CD and bought Little Grandson Anygun a tee shirt that says "Walk like a man..." I can't wait to take his picture in that shirt.

Essentially anytime I can spend time out with my wife is a good time. I do not like going disarmed since I did not pack. I can not say what I will do next time but I will reread this thread before I go.
Anygun

As this thread started in 2008, and looking at Texas3006.com first, it shows that in 2008 the Verizon Wireless Theater was posted properly, but there is a comment there from December 2009, stating it is not posted.

Anyone been there recently that can say for sure, if they are posted properly?
I am going in February and would like to carry, if possible.

Thanks

Have not been back for any shows. Went to see Jerry Jeff though.

Good luck. I doubt if they removed the 30.06 postings.


Anygunanywhere

Kalrog wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:But does "owned by a governmental entity" supercede "leased by a private corporation?"

There is some difference of opinion on that one around these parts. The majority feel that you read the law the way it is written and that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is owned by a governmental agency. And that 30.06 cannot be enforced if a property is leased by a governmental agency. Either one is enough to render a 30.06 sign unenforceable.

Where does that leave us in the argument about whether 30.06 postings at the gun shows in the GRB or Pasadena Convention Center are valid? It would seem, based on the above, that they are invalid since City of Houston owns GRB and City of Pasadena owns Pasadena Convention Center.