Page 1 of 2
Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:43 pm
by Kahrry
Could a multi-person governing authority of a municipality ban the carry of firearms, regardless of license, in the outdoor park areas and enclosed recreational facility. I believe i have a pretty good grasp of the 30.06 law but are they barking up a dead tree. In other words, is there a legal way for them to make it illegal for CHL holders to carry in the parks and indoor facilities? Can anyone put up a legal 30.06 sign?
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:49 pm
by CJATE
if the parks and facilities are publicly funded (but not fed), they can't.
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:55 pm
by Hoi Polloi
Doesn't seem like it would be wise to answer that question on a public forum with anonymous identities and readers even if there were a way! Just saying...
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:08 pm
by Kahrry
Hoi Polloi wrote:Doesn't seem like it would be wise to answer that question on a public forum with anonymous identities and readers even if there were a way! Just saying...
I am looking for information on a hypothetical question.
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:35 pm
by apostate
Kahrry wrote:Can anyone put up a legal 30.06 sign?
Skipping the legal/valid/enforceable question (depending whether your gun uses clips or magazines
)
The law looks pretty clear. 30.06(e) says:
"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."
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:58 pm
by hirundo82
Kahrry wrote:Could a multi-person governing authority of a municipality ban the carry of firearms, regardless of license, in the outdoor park areas and enclosed recreational facility.
Local government cannot regulate carry by CHL holders; they can regulate carry by non-CHLs at specific locations:
Local Government Code Sec. 229.001. FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES.
(a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 10:31 pm
by Kahrry
So that made my head spin a little. So did I read it right that a municipality does not have the legal right to prohibit a licensed CHL holder from carrying in a public park, during any public meeting or in any building owned by the municipality?
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 10:36 pm
by CJATE
Unless somthing else makes it a problem.
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 10:37 pm
by BrianSW99
Kahrry wrote:So that made my head spin a little. So did I read it right that a municipality does not have the legal right to prohibit a licensed CHL holder from carrying in a public park, during any public meeting or in any building owned by the municipality?
That is correct, except that a municipality is given the ability in the Penal Code to post a 30.06 sign to prohibit carry at official government meetings.
Brian
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 9:26 am
by Kahrry
BrianSW99 wrote:Kahrry wrote:So that made my head spin a little. So did I read it right that a municipality does not have the legal right to prohibit a licensed CHL holder from carrying in a public park, during any public meeting or in any building owned by the municipality?
That is correct, except that a municipality is given the ability in the Penal Code to post a 30.06 sign to prohibit carry at official government meetings.
Brian
And what defines an "official" government building? Could it be
any building owned by the municipality?
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 9:44 am
by MoJo
Kahrry wrote:BrianSW99 wrote:Kahrry wrote:So that made my head spin a little. So did I read it right that a municipality does not have the legal right to prohibit a licensed CHL holder from carrying in a public park, during any public meeting or in any building owned by the municipality?
That is correct, except that a municipality is given the ability in the Penal Code to post a 30.06 sign to prohibit carry at
official government meetings.
Brian
And what defines an "official" government building? Could it be
any building owned by the municipality?
It's Meeting, not Building - - - ie. City Council, Comissioner's court etc.
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 10:20 am
by Kahrry
MoJo wrote:Kahrry wrote:BrianSW99 wrote:Kahrry wrote:So that made my head spin a little. So did I read it right that a municipality does not have the legal right to prohibit a licensed CHL holder from carrying in a public park, during any public meeting or in any building owned by the municipality?
That is correct, except that a municipality is given the ability in the Penal Code to post a 30.06 sign to prohibit carry at
official government meetings.
Brian
And what defines an "official" government building? Could it be
any building owned by the municipality?
It's Meeting, not Building - - - ie. City Council, Comissioner's court etc.
sorry, I read that wrong. Thanks for the clarification
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 10:42 am
by RPB
Right.
Imagine if City Hall burned down; and city council had an "official" "meeting" at the "city library"
The "library" typically could NOT be posted, but the room the "meeting" was in could be while the "meeting" was occurring"
"building" is irrelevant unless it's a Court/ offices utilized by a Court/secure area of penal institution/jail/...polling place on a day voting occurs etc etc.
IF city council had an "official meeting" at a picnic table in the park; I suppose they could post that table ... while they met ...
A "business renting a facility" can't have more authority than the property owner who rents it to them.
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 10:51 am
by Kahrry
RPB wrote:Imagine if City Hall burned down...
hypothetically speaking of course...
Re: Business seeking out gun ban in parks and facilities
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 10:55 am
by RPB
Kahrry wrote:RPB wrote:Imagine if City Hall burned down...
hypothetically speaking of course...
yes ... Our city council meets at our "Municipal Airport" (airport owned by the city) ...
not in a
"secured area" of the "municipal" airport though ... but in a hanger/building converted into "council chambers" which may or may not be posted "during official meetings"
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?oe=ut ... 3836988096" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We have property for a "future" city hall.
That part of the "municipal"
airport, owned by the city, can't be posted when no "official meeting" is going on.