TexasCHLforum.com

There is an interesting article in the Sunday morning edition of the Austin American-Statesman which deals with how Austin City Hall is continuing to ban guns in their city hall due to an apparent technicality in the new law.. The article is located on the front of the "B" section of the newspaper captioned "Why City Hall gun ban remains". I would like to post the article here but I just plain do not know how. The article is an interesting read. It basically deals with signage v. verbal warning.

Amazing.... They actually need the AG to spell it out for them... "The reason you can't post the signs is because you can't ban legal carry period, regardless the method of notification".

Austin's position (by the actions of their deputies) appears to be that the law only says they can't put us signs, but that they can still give oral notice to people they can't carry in a building the partially but not wholly contains a government court and essential offices

AG Paxton addressed this in his Opinion KP0049 to Hays County. They may not give notice in oral or written form, and carry cannot be banned on government premises unless there is a statutory exception.

Since Austin has already agreed with the AG to comply with the law, I think they should be subject to fines now.

ELB wrote:Austin's position (by the actions of their deputies) appears to be that the law only says they can't put us signs, but that they can still give oral notice to people they can't carry in a building the partially but not wholly contains a government court and essential offices

AG Paxton addressed this in his Opinion KP0049 to Hays County. They may not give notice in oral or written form, and carry cannot be banned on government premises unless there is a statutory exception.

This is why we end up with such wordy convoluted laws that are hard to read and remember. It's the people that try to get around the specific wording and violate the spirit of the law. It really upsets me when it is public officials doing this.

There may be an interesting nuance here. The new law criminalizes the placement of signs, but does it also criminalize inappropriate bans that are enforced through means other than signage? Either way, the ban is not legal, but it really just comes down to what laws are being violated, and how that violation is likely to be addressed, if at all. Unfortunately, I could see the AG punting here by saying that this falls outside of the new law since there is no signage.

To be clear, a law enforcement agency that is threatening to make arrests for something that they know is not illegal is clearly in the wrong, and I would hope that numerous other laws prohibit this type of action. If I, as a "mere" citizen was to do the same, I would be looking at charges of assault, imprisonment, and kidnapping at a minimum. Then again, as a non-LEO I am held to a higher standard than those who have been granted arrest powers. Either way, I would think that the whole "ignorance of the law is an excuse because I am just a LEO" thing should go by the wayside if you can show that the agency was informed of the law through a citizen's e-mail to the agency, but that's just me.

I would very much like to know if this is going to get addressed in the next legislature.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:There may be an interesting nuance here. The new law criminalizes the placement of signs, but does it also criminalize inappropriate bans that are enforced through means other than signage? Either way, the ban is not legal, but it really just comes down to what laws are being violated, and how that violation is likely to be addressed, if at all. Unfortunately, I could see the AG punting here by saying that this falls outside of the new law since there is no signage.

To be clear, a law enforcement agency that is threatening to make arrests for something that they know is not illegal is clearly in the wrong, and I would hope that numerous other laws prohibit this type of action. If I, as a "mere" citizen was to do the same, I would be looking at charges of assault, imprisonment, and kidnapping at a minimum. Then again, as a non-LEO I am held to a higher standard than those who have been granted arrest powers. Either way, I would think that the whole "ignorance of the law is an excuse because I am just a LEO" thing should go by the wayside if you can show that the agency was informed of the law through a citizen's e-mail to the agency, but that's just me.

Texas 30.06:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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....
(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.

411.209

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

30.06 says that 30.06 does not apply if the property is gov't owned. Does not distinguish between verbal or written notice - the notice does not apply either way. 411.209 says that a political subdivision may not provide notice by communication (does not distinguish between signs or verbal communication) and will be fined accordingly. So yes, the law applies to verbal notices by political subdivisions as well.

locke_n_load wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:There may be an interesting nuance here. The new law criminalizes the placement of signs, but does it also criminalize inappropriate bans that are enforced through means other than signage? Either way, the ban is not legal, but it really just comes down to what laws are being violated, and how that violation is likely to be addressed, if at all. Unfortunately, I could see the AG punting here by saying that this falls outside of the new law since there is no signage.

To be clear, a law enforcement agency that is threatening to make arrests for something that they know is not illegal is clearly in the wrong, and I would hope that numerous other laws prohibit this type of action. If I, as a "mere" citizen was to do the same, I would be looking at charges of assault, imprisonment, and kidnapping at a minimum. Then again, as a non-LEO I am held to a higher standard than those who have been granted arrest powers. Either way, I would think that the whole "ignorance of the law is an excuse because I am just a LEO" thing should go by the wayside if you can show that the agency was informed of the law through a citizen's e-mail to the agency, but that's just me.

Texas 30.06:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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....
(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.

411.209

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

30.06 says that 30.06 does not apply if the property is gov't owned. Does not distinguish between verbal or written notice - the notice does not apply either way. 411.209 says that a political subdivision may not provide notice by communication (does not distinguish between signs or verbal communication) and will be fined accordingly. So yes, the law applies to verbal notices by political subdivisions as well.

Got it. Thanks for posting. So it seems the only thing left here is for the AG to start issuing fines. Since it is verbal notice, I wonder how the city can prove they have stopped making the illegal communications? Clearly any promise or guarantee that they have stopped needs to be taken with a grain of salt given their history on this.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: To be clear, a law enforcement agency that is threatening to make arrests for something that they know is not illegal is clearly in the wrong, and I would hope that numerous other laws prohibit this type of action. If I, as a "mere" citizen was to do the same, I would be looking at charges of assault, imprisonment, and kidnapping at a minimum.

And LE wonders why respect for law enforcement officers is at an all-time low. They need to grow a backbone and tell politicians they are not going to be pawns and will not enforce illegal laws.

Solaris wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: To be clear, a law enforcement agency that is threatening to make arrests for something that they know is not illegal is clearly in the wrong, and I would hope that numerous other laws prohibit this type of action. If I, as a "mere" citizen was to do the same, I would be looking at charges of assault, imprisonment, and kidnapping at a minimum.

And LE wonders why respect for law enforcement officers is at an all-time low. They need to grow a backbone and tell politicians they are not going to be pawns and will not enforce illegal laws.

A good start would be removing all protections for LEO's related to their ignorance of the law. If a LEO is not sure whether something is illegal, then they need to take a few minutes to be sure (if it is important / potentially harmful), or just assume that the action is legal (if minor / harmless) since all actions are legal unless there is a law against it.

30.07 is a good example. It's a new law that got a lot of hype. I would assume that every LEO would take the time to read the law and make sure they understand the exact requirements for signage, etc. I would also hope that every LE agency would have training and other resources available to answer any questions that officers have about the specifics of this law.

If the CoA officials persist in trying to flaunt the law, then the individuals who engage in banning the legal carriers should be personally charged and fined..... then fired. They are the criminals.
It's getting tiresome to see the taxpayers footing the bill for CoA employee screw-ups, and there is no personal accountability.

Don't assume these are screw ups. They are very likely carrying out orders.

Eventually, someone will ignore the verbal warning and be arrested, then sue for false arrest. Maybe quite a few. The City will grow weary of having to write checks, pay staff to defend, and will get the message, or not.

Solaris wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: To be clear, a law enforcement agency that is threatening to make arrests for something that they know is not illegal is clearly in the wrong, and I would hope that numerous other laws prohibit this type of action. If I, as a "mere" citizen was to do the same, I would be looking at charges of assault, imprisonment, and kidnapping at a minimum.

And LE wonders why respect for law enforcement officers is at an all-time low. They need to grow a backbone and tell politicians they are not going to be pawns and will not enforce illegal laws.

That is a harsh generalization. You are assuming "they" don't already do this. By they I'll assume (I realize what assuming can equal) you mean law enforcement in general which I know to be completely false. I've always respected and enjoyed shooting with you, but I'll say humbly that lumping everyone into one group is always risky and may not include the majority.