TexasCHLforum.com

Lynyrd wrote:We all know of many incidents where public property was posted. Does anyone know of one single fine that was levied? Just one?

No fines can be levied until the defendant has been taken to court and found guilty of breaking the law. The fines will be levied from the date the AG's office was notified. If you haven't noticed, our legal system works tortuously slowly. The first ones to be fined will be the City of Austin and Waller County.

Others will likely follow "quickly" once those have been decided.

When?

Or IF?

Ok, I'll admit, I'm late to this party. I've been monitoring this situation just out of general curiosity and had not been too concerned about it one way or the other because none of the places I typically travel have this situation (yes, a terrible attitude to have, I know, and I'm properly ashamed of myself now ).

Because now I HAVE been affected. Tonight I went to my grandson's youth baseball game and noticed that the park where the fields are located is posted 30.06 and 30.07. The signs were posted by the local youths sports league (which is an independent non-profit organization not affiliated with the school system or the city), so I dutifully went back to my truck and stowed my 1911. However, after I got home I did confirm my suspicion, which was that the property where the ball fields are located is owned by the city.

I was kind of excited that I was going to get to go through the process of notifying the city, then writing a letter to the AG and all that. Then I looked over this thread some more and finally look at KP-108. What a bummer.

So, from what I understand based on that information, the 411.209 statute, KP-108, and this thread is that the youth sports league can post signs, but those signs are not enforceable because they are on city-owned property, correct?

However, if I did decide to carry there but were somehow "outed", then I could theoretically worst case "take the ride" and have to work it all out in court, correct?

Someone in this thread somewhere said this was an easy tweak to get this law fixed. That apparently won't happen in this session. I look forward to when that does eventually get done.

I really stopped worrying about 30.06 signs on government property when they were made inapplicable. Then when 30.06 was made a class C misdemeanor I worried much less about "taking the ride" (to the mailbox to mail in my request for a jury trial on a $200 no jail ticket). The places that still affect me are where they actively screen/wand/pat down despite being government owned. I also believe KP108 is being interpreted much more broadly than the wording of the opinion supports. I expect little change so I will continue to actively ignore the "intent" of inapplicable signs whenever I can get away with it. I am not averse to trying to conceal past the screening in these cases, but so far they've hit on my handgun and I had to do the walk of shame back to my car and write a complaint to the city.

thatguyoverthere wrote:Ok, I'll admit, I'm late to this party. I've been monitoring this situation just out of general curiosity and had not been too concerned about it one way or the other because none of the places I typically travel have this situation (yes, a terrible attitude to have, I know, and I'm properly ashamed of myself now ).

Because now I HAVE been affected. Tonight I went to my grandson's youth baseball game and noticed that the park where the fields are located is posted 30.06 and 30.07. The signs were posted by the local youths sports league (which is an independent non-profit organization not affiliated with the school system or the city), so I dutifully went back to my truck and stowed my 1911. However, after I got home I did confirm my suspicion, which was that the property where the ball fields are located is owned by the city.

I was kind of excited that I was going to get to go through the process of notifying the city, then writing a letter to the AG and all that. Then I looked over this thread some more and finally look at KP-108. What a bummer.

So, from what I understand based on that information, the 411.209 statute, KP-108, and this thread is that the youth sports league can post signs, but those signs are not enforceable because they are on city-owned property, correct?

However, if I did decide to carry there but were somehow "outed", then I could theoretically worst case "take the ride" and have to work it all out in court, correct?

Someone in this thread somewhere said this was an easy tweak to get this law fixed. That apparently won't happen in this session. I look forward to when that does eventually get done.

Underlined is my emphasis. Your understandings are correct - private entities can post property that they rent from the city/county/state with 30.06/07 per the OAG opinion, but they are unenforceable. The only caveat would be if a school sponsored event was taking place. Even if the signs on public property were enforced by an uninformed LEO, it is only a class C misdemeanor and you probably wouldn't be taking any rides, unless the signs are posted at a hospital/nursing home, church/place of worship, or amusement park, at which point it would be a class A misdemeanor, if enforceable.

ScottDLS wrote:I really stopped worrying about 30.06 signs on government property when they were made inapplicable. Then when 30.06 was made a class C misdemeanor I worried much less about "taking the ride" (to the mailbox to mail in my request for a jury trial on a $200 no jail ticket). The places that still affect me are where they actively screen/wand/pat down despite being government owned. I also believe KP108 is being interpreted much more broadly than the wording of the opinion supports. I expect little change so I will continue to actively ignore the "intent" of inapplicable signs whenever I can get away with it. I am not averse to trying to conceal past the screening in these cases, but so far they've hit on my handgun and I had to do the walk of shame back to my car and write a complaint to the city.

Yep. Can't carry into concerts on city property if they deny entry. Very infuriating. And now zoo schools and museum schools will continue to post signage that could result in a felony if you were successfully convicted for carrying on the grounds where a school sponsored activity is taking place.

Fort Worth gun show has begun having the uniformed officers checking guns if you are carrying a concealed handgun.
Then you have to present your LTC.

hovercat wrote:Fort Worth gun show has begun having the uniformed officers checking guns if you are carrying a concealed handgun.
Then you have to present your LTC.

Are they allowing entry now?

No.

hovercat wrote:No.

OK do they frisk you or wand you? Or can you walk by without checking in? And if you do so and are found out, what would they do?

Am I the only one that sees this as some kinda challenge?

locke_n_load wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I really stopped worrying about 30.06 signs on government property when they were made inapplicable. Then when 30.06 was made a class C misdemeanor I worried much less about "taking the ride" (to the mailbox to mail in my request for a jury trial on a $200 no jail ticket). The places that still affect me are where they actively screen/wand/pat down despite being government owned. I also believe KP108 is being interpreted much more broadly than the wording of the opinion supports. I expect little change so I will continue to actively ignore the "intent" of inapplicable signs whenever I can get away with it. I am not averse to trying to conceal past the screening in these cases, but so far they've hit on my handgun and I had to do the walk of shame back to my car and write a complaint to the city.

Yep. Can't carry into concerts on city property if they deny entry. Very infuriating. And now zoo schools and museum schools will continue to post signage that could result in a felony if you were successfully convicted for carrying on the grounds where a school sponsored activity is taking place.

Technically a class A misdemeanor for a school sponsored activity and felony for the "premises" of a school.

crazy2medic wrote:Am I the only one that sees this as some kinda challenge?

I was going to go to Ft Worth gun show a couple weeks ago to find out, but never got around to it.

ScottDLS wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:Am I the only one that sees this as some kinda challenge?

I was going to go to Ft Worth gun show a couple weeks ago to find out, but never got around to it.

So next gun show we meet and try and beat their system?

Be careful with the attitude of, "it's only a class C so you probably won't take a ride." Depending on the officer and taking into consideration it's a gun related offense, I'll predict there is at least a fair chance of going downtown.

If any officers are enforcing unenforceable signs on city property, take it up with the dept, city attorney, or even the Sheriff. The officers are not attorneys and will enforce whatever regulations they are told by those paying them the overtime to be there.