The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
If posted by or at the direction of a public employee, yes. If posted by a private person (such as the above mentioned gun shows), no, but those 30.06 signs are not valid because they are on public property.baldeagle wrote:So would this make a 30.06 sign at a gun show on public property illegal?
Ok. I see what you are saying. Is there anything (other than getting caught (unintentionally, of course), taking a ride, and fighting it out in court) that can be done about the invalid postings (such as at gun shows) on public property?Charles L. Cotton wrote:So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.
30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.
Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.
Chas.
If you think the signs posted at gun shows, many museums, parking lots, the zoo, stock show, 6th floor museum, etc. are done upon instruction by a public employee, then the bill works. IMHO, if anyone (public employee or private citizen) is posting a non enforceable sign they should be held accountable.Charles L. Cotton wrote:So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.
30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.
Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.
Chas.
I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.Charles L. Cotton wrote:So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.
30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.
Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.
Chas.
Bayou Vista Municipal Court is in that same building. That's what makes it off limits.Jeff Barriault wrote:I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.
Rex B wrote:Change "held" to a "currently in progress" might make it workJP171 wrote:I wonder about HB 508 section C, the language lends itself to a very broad interpretation.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a [at any] meeting of a governmental entity is held [/color]and if the
meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter
The Bold is the new language the blue is the old. I think that provides a loophole for abuse as in the city council uses all the rooms at city hall as meeting rooms as Texas law defines a meeting as 2 or more, council members are always going into each others offices.
Jeff: I meant I don't know of any 30.06 signs posted by private persons on government property other than at gun shows. The signs you listed were undoubtedly posted by a public employee or at the instruction of a public employee and under the Bill, this will be a violation for each day when no official meeting of a governmental agency is ongoing.Jeff Barriault wrote:I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.Charles L. Cotton wrote:So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.
30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.
Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.
Chas.
That means only temporary signs can be used, just like you want. 
Would the red bolded lanuage in the bill take care of the private or impromptu meeting issue? Seems like they could only temp post for formal, open meetings.Reds45ACP wrote:Rex B wrote:Change "held" to a "currently in progress" might make it workJP171 wrote:I wonder about HB 508 section C, the language lends itself to a very broad interpretation.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a [at any] meeting of a governmental entity is held [/color]and if the
meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapterThe Bold is the new language the blue is the old. I think that provides a loophole for abuse as in the city council uses all the rooms at city hall as meeting rooms as Texas law defines a meeting as 2 or more, council members are always going into each others offices.
1) Yaaayyyy for 508
2)
3) Let's get the dang 30.06 sign off of Austin City Hall!!!
2firfun50 wrote:Would the red bolded lanuage in the bill take care of the private or impromptu meeting issue? Seems like they could only temp post for formal, open meetings.Reds45ACP wrote:Rex B wrote:Change "held" to a "currently in progress" might make it workJP171 wrote:I wonder about HB 508 section C, the language lends itself to a very broad interpretation.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a [at any] meeting of a governmental entity is held [/color]and if the
meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapterThe Bold is the new language the blue is the old. I think that provides a loophole for abuse as in the city council uses all the rooms at city hall as meeting rooms as Texas law defines a meeting as 2 or more, council members are always going into each others offices.
1) Yaaayyyy for 508
2)
3) Let's get the dang 30.06 sign off of Austin City Hall!!!
RottenApple wrote:Bayou Vista Municipal Court is in that same building. That's what makes it off limits.Jeff Barriault wrote:I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.
Does it apply to the entire building, or just the offices utilized by the court?(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;
That is the $64,000 question. IMHO, it should only apply to the offices utilized by the court. In practice, I'm sure it applies to the whole building. The legislature didn't make it very clear and, as far as I'm aware, there is no case law on the subject.Jeff Barriault wrote:Didn't even know that there was a municipal court office in the building. Being a multi use building and not an actual court building, how does the existing statute apply?
Does it apply to the entire building, or just the offices utilized by the court?(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;