TexasCHLforum.com

Bladed wrote:
Here is an old post in which Charles notes the existence of case law stating that a clause using the wording "does not apply" is a defense to prosecution, not an exception: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 41#p176511

OK, what I vaguely remembered from Charles post was the part in red

'Most prosecutors will treat a "does not apply" provision like they would an "exception," but there is case law that holds the only exceptions are those expressly stated to be "exceptions."

So, legally, it appears that it would be a defense to prosecution, not an exception. I, however, would still use the argument that a hospital defined in 46.035 and owned by the government should not be able to post a 30.6/30.07 sign. Until case law shows up, we don't know 100% how they would rule.

Keith B wrote:

Bladed wrote:
Here is an old post in which Charles notes the existence of case law stating that a clause using the wording "does not apply" is a defense to prosecution, not an exception: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 41#p176511

OK, what I vaguely remembered from Charles post was the part in red

'Most prosecutors will treat a "does not apply" provision like they would an "exception," but there is case law that holds the only exceptions are those expressly stated to be "exceptions."

So, legally, it appears that it would be a defense to prosecution, not an exception. I, however, would still use the argument that a hospital defined in 46.035 and owned by the government should not be able to post a 30.6/30.07 sign. Until case law shows up, we don't know 100% how they would rule.

How a prosecutor will treat a defense and what the law actually says are two different things (the prosecutor isn't a judge). The law says that "does not apply" is a defense to prosecution; therefore, the statutory prohibition still exists.

That, coupled with the fact that the Texas Legislature demonstrated (by posting the House and Senate galleries 30.06) that it intended to allow governmental meetings to be posted 30.06, clearly demonstrates to me that the legislative intent behind PC Sec. 30.06(e) was to allow any location listed under 46.035 to be posted 30.06 regardless of whether it is owned by a private entity or a governmental entity.

Edited to clarify which legislation/law I'm referring to.

I wasn't expecting this to go this deep when I posted the question - lots of interesting stuff, it's good reading watching you two talk :)

anomie wrote:I wasn't expecting this to go this deep when I posted the question - lots of interesting stuff, it's good reading watching you two talk :)

I should probably note that I originally held the same position as Keith B.

About seven years ago I wrote a local TV news station, complaining that they'd incorrectly stated that the city had the option of prohibiting concealed carry at city council meetings. Then I took a closer look at the law and concluded that the TV station was correct.