TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Sat May 19, 2012 3:05 pm**

JKTex wrote:
tomharkness wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Please post the details of any city or other governmental entity or agency that is posting 30.06 signs where they are not warranted by Texas statute. I am particularly interested in the posting of a 30.06 sign where only a portion of a building is being used for an activity that is statutorily off-limits to CHL's. For example, some cities are putting a court clerk's office in city hall and declaring the entire building off-limits. At least one city has posted its library with 30.06 signs, solely because one of its schools occasionally has class field days there on "library days."

Thanks,
Chas.
The City of Pittsburg has the sign on City Hall. There are no judges, chiefs, Law Enforcement, or other in that building. Only the mayor... but he is a magistrate.
The only thing that matters is if court proceedings are held in that building. Sounds like there is, thus off limits regardless of signs or who offices there.

Court proceedings do not actually have to be held in the building ... but I agree, sounds like they found a way to make it off limits ... as long as he has an office there
(Or offices utilized by the Court)
Pittsburg's City Hall is located at 200 Rusk Street http://www.pittsburgtexas.com/departments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pittsburg Municipal Court located at 200 Rusk Street http://www.pittsburgtexas.com/departmen ... court.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Municipal Court Judge is Steven Simmons, who works out of the City Hall office

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(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;
=======================

Similar situation in my city, where I had to have my niece or friend run in to pay utility bill at city offices, (or disarm in the car) as Municipal Court cashier etc was there too ... now I auto-draft my bank for the city util bill and don't go there.

Texas DPS/Driver License and County Tax for license plates are in the County Court Annex Bldg... So I do online stuff and got lic plates/trailer/ car registration stickers which last longer than normal (an option I learned from them last time, so you can pay several future years now and not have to go back each year)

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2012 3:52 pm**

This building is the Administration Building for Pasadena ISD as well as PISD Tax Office and the signs are posted at the parking lot access driveways. PISD has a police force as well and I see the cars parked there, though I have seen no signage saying it's headquartered there. The sign is relativley new since it was not posted when I payed my taxes in Dec 2011. There are no 30.06 signs on the the building entrances. I am going to attempt to get some information from an aquaintance who's a PISD Board member.

Posted: **Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:15 pm**

This whole thing just goes to show you how backwards the State of Texas is when it comes to stupid things like enforcing compliance with 30.06 signage. If these people are going to be allowed to post fake signs--then law enforcement should be told not to take them seriously. Maybe the state should make these people/businesses apply (and pay a good amount of money) for a license to legally put the sign on their store window--just like we have to apply, get refresher training and pay to get/keep a license.

Posted: **Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:40 pm**

This is the sign on the wall at the Fire Department I volunteer at what do you think

Posted: **Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:35 pm**

texas medic wrote:This is the sign on the wall at the Fire Department I volunteer at what do you think
CHL sign.JPG

Technically it's not wrong. Licensed concealed carry is different.

But it's old, and kind of dumb.

Posted: **Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:38 pm**

Glenn61 wrote:This whole thing just goes to show you how backwards the State of Texas is when it comes to stupid things like enforcing compliance with 30.06 signage. If these people are going to be allowed to post fake signs--then law enforcement should be told not to take them seriously.

No one is telling them to take them seriously. If they're not enforceable, they can't be enforced.

I think is was Charles that said recently, "they cannot arrest for that which is not illegal". Or something like that. The only thing backwards is whoever ordered the unenforceable signs to be placed, wasting tax payer money.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:04 am**

I wish the DPS would take charge of 30.06 signage the way TABC controls the 51% signs.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:15 am**

I have a question for some of the lawyers on here.

When the government officials are aware these signs are not enforceable, and they post them anyway, why are they not guilty of Texas Penal Code - Section 39.03. Official Oppression?

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

It would seem that a-2 would apply. They are certainly intentionally denying and impeding the exercise (and enjoyment) of one of our rights.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:25 am**

Rex B wrote:I wish the DPS would take charge of 30.06 signage the way TABC controls the 51% signs.

Everything on earth costs money.

The state has a compelling state interest in regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages (and tobacco products). Enforcement in these areas is funded by taxes and fees on the regulated product or activity.

If you want DPS to enforce something, DPS is going to have to pay for it by increased budget or by transferring funds from some other activity.

It is not illegal to post a sign that says "no guns" in any way, shape, or form that does not conform to the requirements of PC 30.06. It is not illegal for a county or city to have an ordinance that is contrary to LCG 229.001(a)(6). This would include restrictions on CHL holders on government-owned property. The only remedy is for someone who has his rights violated to sue or appeal.

After 15 years, no one has been successfully convicted of violating 30.06, and no one has sued subsequent to an arrest that I know of. Someone who didn't get his law degree by mail order might know better.

- Jim

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:34 am**

I would think that the (excessive) fees we pay to exercise a basic right would be sufficient for this

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:44 am**

ScooterSissy wrote:I have a question for some of the lawyers on here.

When the government officials are aware these signs are not enforceable, and they post them anyway, why are they not guilty of Texas Penal Code - Section 39.03. Official Oppression?

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
It would seem that a-2 would apply. They are certainly intentionally denying and impeding the exercise (and enjoyment) of one of our rights.

A sign doesn't oppress or restrict anyone, even if someone doesn't know it's invalid and complies.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:45 am**

Rex B wrote:I would think that the (excessive) fees we pay to exercise a basic right would be sufficient for this

I've pointed out many times that the actual cost of administering the CHL program is far less than the fees that the state collects. It is literally a cash cow.

The money does not go to DPS. It goes into the state treasury. The DPS budget is flat or lower every year.

The only redress in that direction is the legislature and the governor. I do not mean to belittle their efforts to promote the right to keep and bear arms, which have been significant; but they aren't totally honest about where the money goes.

There are a lot of so-called fees that don't go where they were supposed to go. The sporting goods sales tax is a big one that annoys me no end.

- Jim

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:47 am**

ScooterSissy wrote:I have a question for some of the lawyers on here.

When the government officials are aware these signs are not enforceable, and they post them anyway, why are they not guilty of Texas Penal Code - Section 39.03. Official Oppression?

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
It would seem that a-2 would apply. They are certainly intentionally denying and impeding the exercise (and enjoyment) of one of our rights.

If any attorneys care to respond to the question above, also please consider that there are uniformed PPD officers enforcing 30.06 at the entrance of the Pasadena Convention Center. The last one I encountered there was quite arrogant and completely ignorant of the actual law. Didn't want to antagonize the situation by inquiring whether the city or venue was paying for the presence of the police.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:47 am**

Rex B wrote:I wish the DPS would take charge of 30.06 signage the way TABC controls the 51% signs.

No we don't! We want the unenforceable 30.06 signs to actually be addressed and those that post them be held accountable.

I'm not sure I'd call what TABC does (or more like doesn't do) "taking charge". It's still up to us to know and if someone reports an invalid 51% sign, "hope" TABC contacts and they take it down.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:52 am**

puma guy wrote:
If any attorneys care to respond to the question above, also please consider that there are uniformed PPD officers enforcing 30.06 at the entrance of the Pasadena Convention Center. The last one I encountered there was quite arrogant and completely ignorant of the actual law. Didn't want to antagonize the situation by inquiring whether the city or venue was paying for the presence of the police.

How are they "enforcing" it? Obviously if you were somehow detained or charged, it's invalid and obviously a problem for PPD. If you brought up the topic and it was just a discussion, no foul (although it's stinky) Or if you brought it up or it was brought up and you were refused entry, I believe you have grounds for a complaint and can be the first to bring attention to it and get it remedied. No pressure though....

TexasCHLforum.com

Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Pasadena ISD Admin Parking lot 30.06

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?