TexasCHLforum.com

Ok, heres the deal. Everyone knows there is strength in numbers. Instead of tackling Ft Worth by myself, I would like to enlist the help of a few of my CHL friends. The Will Rogers Center was posted 30.06 for the Stock Show, and will be posted for the next gun show. (and pretty soon will be posted for all events I would assume) What if we flood the city attorney's office, mayor's office and city council office with letters and or emails informing them of the unenforcable postings and request removal of the signs? Has anyone had any luck and or headaches with Ft Worth in the past?

If you are on board let me know. We can come up with a game plan and go from there.

The gun shows are posted by the gun show promoters. I do not believe the Will Rogers is posted per se.

As KaiserB said, you'll probably find those signs are being posted by the organization that's leasing the venue. The City of Ft. Worth may not have much influence on that. The enforceability of signs posted by a private entity leasing public property is a grey area at best. I don't think there have been any test cases yet.

BrianSW99 wrote:As KaiserB said, you'll probably find those signs are being posted by the organization that's leasing the venue. The City of Ft. Worth may not have much influence on that. The enforceability of signs posted by a private entity leasing public property is a grey area at best. I don't think there have been any test cases yet.

Not really much of a grey area. The Will Rogers building is owned by the City of Ft Worth. That makes the 30.06 unenforceable.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

I haven't seen too many eager to volunteer for that whole test case thing.

...I was looking for that very text this morning...is it under the 30.06 law???

speedsix wrote:...I was looking for that very text this morning...is it under the 30.06 law???

Here is the entire chapter for your reference:

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code, on property of another without effective
consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the
owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the
owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section
46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS PC §42.01 35
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased
by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which
the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under
Section 46.03 or 46.035

So.... we can carry then, right? That's what I'm getting from that red text. I'm not too crazy about being a test case though. And even if I beat the rap, I don't have time for the ride... (or the expenses involved)

In an case, yes, I am in for flooding the city of Fort Worth to try to get them to reduce improperly posted signs. I think you'd have fantastic results if you made a sample letter so that the forum members could just copy/paste, and add their names. Shoot, we could make this a standard 'form' where you basically fill in the blanks for the members to use to let ANY city know about improperly posted signs... Seems logical to me...
I'd do it right now, but I'm on my way back to class... If there isn't one up by tomorrow at 10PM I'll write a standardized fill in the blanks type letter...

I have written l polite letters to the City Attorney, and have recevied polite but useless responses.

Does anyone know if the OAG Opinion is still valid? I know that at face value this is 100% contradictory to what the law actually states, but here it is:

Full Text here:

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op ... jc0325.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

S U M M A R Y

A unit of government has statutory authority to bar entry to its property by a concealed handgun licensee carrying a weapon in the following manner: either by providing individualized verbal notice to the licensee or by erecting a sign or other written communication in compliance with section 30.06 of the Penal Code that furnishes statutory notice to concealed handgun licensees that entry on the property while carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited. However, a unit of government may not, merely by promulgating its own rules, regulations, or policies, bar the holder of a concealed handgun license from carrying his weapon onto property owned or controlled by the particular governmental unit.

Yours very truly,


JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas

As already stated, it is the promoters, not the city pitting up those signs, so a letter writing campaign to the city will be fruitless. You can try sending emails to the promoters of the gun shows, but I can tell you THAT will be fruitless also.

Now, the whole issue of if they are enforceable or not is this; myself and others don't believe they are enforceable, but there is no case law on this particular situation. So, until there is, there is still a question. AND, the promoters can put up whatever signs they like as long as they are not a civil rights violation. They can post a sign that says 'Long haired freaky people need not apply' (name that tune ) and can keep you out if they so desire. In the case of the invalid 30.06, if found carrying you may still take a ride and become that test case if the prosecutor decides you are the one to get the law and enforcement clarified. That WILL cost you money and time at least.

So, IMO you have three options:

1. Comply with the sign and go in.
2. Don't comply and enter anyway and risk being challenged on it and possibly arrested.
3. Don't comply and leave.

steveincowtown wrote:I have written l polite letters to the City Attorney, and have recevied polite but useless responses.

Does anyone know if the OAG Opinion is still valid? I know that at face value this is 100% contradictory to what the law actually states, but here it is:

Full Text here:

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op ... jc0325.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

S U M M A R Y

A unit of government has statutory authority to bar entry to its property by a concealed handgun licensee carrying a weapon in the following manner: either by providing individualized verbal notice to the licensee or by erecting a sign or other written communication in compliance with section 30.06 of the Penal Code that furnishes statutory notice to concealed handgun licensees that entry on the property while carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited. However, a unit of government may not, merely by promulgating its own rules, regulations, or policies, bar the holder of a concealed handgun license from carrying his weapon onto property owned or controlled by the particular governmental unit.

Yours very truly,


JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas

I am not positive, but I believe this OAG opinion pre-dates the statute prohibiting government from posting a sign unless at the meeting of a government entity (city council meeting, etc.) Will try to find the year they added that portion.

EDITED TO ADD: SB501 passed in 2003 is what added Section (e) to TPC 30.06 prohibiting government from putting 30.06 signs on their buildings, so the 2001 OAG Opinion is no longer valid. See http://www.gunlaws.com/tgogup2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kythas wrote:

BrianSW99 wrote:As KaiserB said, you'll probably find those signs are being posted by the organization that's leasing the venue. The City of Ft. Worth may not have much influence on that. The enforceability of signs posted by a private entity leasing public property is a grey area at best. I don't think there have been any test cases yet.

Not really much of a grey area. The Will Rogers building is owned by the City of Ft Worth. That makes the 30.06 unenforceable.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

That is fact.

Keith B wrote: They can post a sign that says 'Long haired freaky people need not apply' (name that tune )

Signs
Originally by Les Emmerson of the Five Man Electric Band in 1970.
The more widely known version was done 20 years later by Tesla on their album Five Man Acoustical Jam in 1990.

See:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=529" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keith B wrote:So, IMO you have three options:

1. Comply with the sign and go in.
2. Don't comply and enter anyway and risk being challenged on it and possibly arrested.
3. Don't comply and leave.

Option 1 would also mean not buying any handguns. The sign isn't limited to loaded guns, so if I buy a handgun and the dealer puts it in a box or bag and I take possession, then I'm carrying a concealed handgun. If I don't conceal, then I violate the intentional failure to conceal rule, which also isn't limited to loaded guns. What a conundrum!