TexasCHLforum.com

So is it safe to assume that, once again, we're not going to get any teeth added to this statute this session?

C-dub wrote:

JKTex wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

JKTex wrote:

JohnMarine wrote:Austin city hall is posted. They hold court some times and have the whole building posted everyday regardless if there is court that day or not.

A court or building with space used as a court is a prohibited place regardless of 30.06 so if Austin City Hall is posted, it's for no effective reason.

This is incorrect. The definition of "premises" includes "a building or portion of a building, . . ." If only a portion of a building is used as a court, then only that portion of the building is off-limits.

Chas.

Thanks for the correction. I have to admit I don't think I've ever read it, I just thought I understood it. So much for thinking.

There may be many of us that have misunderstood this here. I thought it had been discussed many time and the consensus was that if there was a courtroom in the building that the entire building was off limits.

That was my understanding as well. Also, doesn't that section of the law say something like "court or offices used by a court"? It always seemed to me that this had a lot of potential for abuse. A city could theoretically move a trivial court administrative function into an otherwise non-court building and call it off-limits?

Slightly off topic but if we're going to allow this, I wish the law would require the entity to state on a separate sign why the building or area is statutorily off limits (such as "Licensed or unlicensed possession prohibited due to: COURT")

Having said that, are we sure there are courts in Austin City Hall? The website shows four municipal court locations, none of which are in City Hall.
http://www.austintexas.gov/department/m ... -locations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

unicyclist wrote:Update:
She never called me back, no surprise really. I went to GCWDA in person to submit a open records request. I spoke with Kieth Hardcastle, and says there is no email record of his conversation with the AGO. He called the IG with his cell phone, does not know who he spoke with, but hey said he was allowed to post 30.06. He reiterated many times throughout our 30 minute conversation how there is no bigger supporter of the 2nd Amendment than him.

He admitted that there is not any records of his phone call/AG opinion. (I have the conversation audio recorded), and not sure where to go from here. I think I am going to contact my representatives, which have high NRA ratings, to see if they can do anything.
If my representatives can't do anything, my only option is lawyer up....Mr. Cotton, do you work for free?

What do expect a lawyer to do for you? The law simply makes the sign unenforceable on government owned or leased buildings; it doesn't prohibit it from being posted nor establish penalties upon those who do. afaik, it doesn't even give anybody such as the AG or a DA the power to even investigate an unenforceable posting.

I have no doubt that Mr. Hardcastle is either flat out lying to you or he did in fact speak with "someone" at the AG's office who gave him incorrect or incomplete information. Actually, if someone at the AG's office said he was "allowed" to post 30.06, they would not even technically be incorrect. The sign may not be enforceable, but it's not "disallowed" either.

You solve this the way Florida and other states do - by imposing monetary penalties that accrue daily upon the specific person within the agency that authorized the sign to be posted. Texas had a bill that would do this making its way through the Legislature last session but like other pro-CHL bills, it got squashed for various reasons. Your best bet is to contribute to Joe Strauss' opponent and/or convince your representative not to vote for him for speaker. And frankly I'm not sure Dan Patrick will be of any help in these matters either.

unicyclist wrote:

TexasCajun wrote: If the location you listed is an office of a government entity, you should be able to also bring this to the attention of the City Attorney for the municipality in question for a double-barreled approach.

Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority is a state ran agency, and it was the Director of PR that I spoke with. No city attorney/council that I can think of besides the AG

They should have some kind of Board of Directors and someone in charge of day to day operations, like a General Manager. The Board in all likelihood retains counsel for themselves - if you can find out who that is you could direct the question directly to them.

As a state agency, they would be subject to the Open Records Act and will either have to respond to you within a certain number of days, or tell you why they won't. File the request with the Disposal Authority, not the AG's office. It's possible they might try to claim some kind of attorney/client privilege and that's when you go to the AG's office and ask them for a clarification as to why this agency does not comply with the law. He's feeding you a line of bull - if this is a state-created agency and not one of statutory exceptions, the sign is not valid, period. Nobody at the AG's office told him that it was. They might have told him that it's unenforceable but there was nothing "illegal" about having it up, which is sadly the truth.

I'm really getting fed up with these agencies doing this and I wish we could have gotten some teeth put into this law last year. Unfortunately, even if you're correct there's no way that I am aware of to force them to take down the sign. Maybe you'll beat the rap and not the ride and all that, but at the end of the day there are no consequences to them if they leave it up. That's just the sad fact. Good luck and let us know how it turns out!

NcongruNt wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:I sure hope this is on the agenda this session. It burns my hide every time I walk past Austin City Hall and see the 30.06 and the metal detectors at both entrances. They should not be allowed to do this.

Those signs are enforceable only when the council is in session (the meeting of a governmental body clause). AFAIK, that is the only time they actually use the metal detectors. Any other time, the detectors are not in operation, and you can carry past the signs. I did just that last time I was at City Hall for an art exhibit. Yes, the signs were still there (off to the side), but no enforcement was taking place, and the metal detectors were off to the side as well.

Walked by on my lunch hour earlier this week. Nothing was going on, Council not in session, and the 30.06 signs were up and metal detectors in use.

This is garbage. It needs to stop. Someone please tell me this is being addressed in the next session.

NcongruNt wrote:Those signs are enforceable only when the council is in session (the meeting of a governmental body clause). AFAIK, that is the only time they actually use the metal detectors. Any other time, the detectors are not in operation, and you can carry past the signs. I did just that last time I was at City Hall for an art exhibit. Yes, the signs were still there (off to the side), but no enforcement was taking place, and the metal detectors were off to the side as well.

Interesting. Were you there at night or after 6:00? I work a couple of blocks away and used to have a friend who worked in the building that I'd meet up with a couple of times a month. In all the times I've walk by or walked in, I've never seen the metal detectors not manned whether Council was in session or not.

puma guy wrote:I share your frustration with cities ignoring the laws and improperly posting. We give up our rights little by little by little then wonder why government and courts do as they please. My city is not quite as bad as Austin, but are moving in that direction. No metal detectors, though. Me thinks until someone becomes a test case we won't get any changes.

Honestly, I doubt even losing a test case would do it. Best case scenario, they would keep the sign up and just not enforce it, or not enforce it too rigorously. Even if the City had to pay a monetary penalty (and even that is doubtful under the current law), they wouldn't take down the sign. You might - MIGHT - get action if you held the mayor and city council members personally liable for the fines. Even then, most likely, they would move some obscure court office into a broom closet on the 3rd floor and declare the entire place a "court" (hopefully whatever legislation might be being contemplated takes shenanigans like this into account).

imho, you would literally have to send state troopers into Austin City Hall with torches or screwdrivers to physically remove the sign by force, and you would have to keep those troopers there during working hours to prevent APD from arresting CHL holders who set off the metal detectors. This City is that bad.

puma guy wrote:I would like to know what you refer to as the "valid reason" for posting gun shows.

Basically,notwithstanding the first rule of gun safety, the argument is that the guns on the tables at gun shows are presumed to be unloaded (in fact, as I understand it they are required to be so by the promoter). If you allow people to bring in their loaded concealed weapons, there is a chance somebody will pull out his or her loaded weapon to show or compare with one for sale and create a possibility that the loaded weapon will, for whatever reason, get mixed up with the unloaded stock and accidentally "dry" fired.

It's happened at shows in the past; in fact, it happened at the Austin Saxet fairly recently although from what I heard it was because a dealer brought in a loaded gun, not a CHL holder.

I don't know that I totally buy into it, but I see the point. Regardless, the main issue to me isn't whether this is a legitimate concern or not, it's why the show promoters are allowed to post and enforce 30.06 signs at a government owned facility when statute seems to pretty clearly say they can't. You follow the law as it's written, or you change it. You don't take it upon yourself to make up a different set of rules because you think it might be a good idea.

I sure hope this is on the agenda this session. It burns my hide every time I walk past Austin City Hall and see the 30.06 and the metal detectors at both entrances. They should not be allowed to do this.

I hope whatever is done clarifies that the "government meeting" posting can only apply to the actual room where the meeting is being held, while it is being held, and not the entire building always and forever just because the City Council happens to meet there a couple of times a week.

As for the gun show deal, I'm pretty much on the fence philosophically with that one as I see both sides of it. My problem is that the law as I read it currently does not seem to allow posting 30.06 at a government owned facility, which is where a lot if not most of the shows are held. If we want to allow gun shows - or any lessee for that matter - to post, let's change the law to reflect that. If we don't, they can't, period. I hate, hate, hate that so many people are willing to look the other way on the gun show postings because there is a valid reason why they're posted. That's not how it works. Follow the law or change the law, but don't make it up as you go along.

bentcursor wrote:Has anyone successfully sued a person/business/govt. agency for posting an illegal sign? It seems to me that lawsuits are the way to get people to wake up and stop doing something. Maybe the Texas Rifle Association could fund a lawsuit. One successful suit would bring down all these signs.

Ben

I'm not sure there is technically such a thing as an "illegal" sign. As far as I know, the law doesn't forbid anybody from posting a non-compliant sign, it just specifies the exact sign that must be posted for effective notice to be considered given as a matter of law.

If a private business has a "gunbuster" or non-compliant 30.06 sign, let it be. If you make a stink about it, they may well put up a compliant sign and then we're all screwed. And maybe the business owner knows the law and intentionally puts up a gunbuster knowing it's not compliant, thus allowing concealed carry but appeasing the anti's - the best of both worlds.

Now cities/counties doing it, that's a totally different story. This should be illegal if the building does not contain a court or any of the other stipulated exceptions, and there needs to be penalties imposed on the appropriate officials. I believe I read somewhere that Florida imposes a $5000 fine on any official that allows their version to be put up when it's not authorized. But as of now, as far as I know, Texas has no such prohibition or penalty, so there would be no grounds for a lawsuit. There should be, but there's not.