TexasCHLforum.com

Thank you for linking, very good food for thought there. I'm going to read through that discussion a bit more when I'm more awake.

kragluver wrote:Fort Worth Museum of Science & History (which is apparently built on a city-owned lot) is posted. The only visible sign is in the grass next to the sidewalk coming from the south (i.e., the Cowgirl Museum). I have not seen a sign at the main entrance.

I just remembered - there is a museum school for children at the museum - this may qualify the museum as a school which would therefore make it off-limits.

Just came home from the museum. Saw the sign outside the IMAX entrance and had to go back to the car (after checking Texas3006.com was inconclusive). Just checked TAD.org and found that the property is owned by the City of FTW.

I'll be carrying past that sign next time.

TAD Property Link... You'll need to copy/paste the link since it has a "]" inside it..
http://www.tad.org/datasearch/re.cfm?Account=%28%2F!4IJ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]\4KP%28%20%0A
Property Location: 1600 Gendy St, Fort Worth
Owner Information: Fort Worth, City of, 1000 Throckmorton St, Fort Worth Tx 76102-6311
Legal Description: Ftw Museum of Science & Hist, Blk 1 Lot 1

Sentido to vote yesterday afternoon to the League City Annex in Calder Road. Since it was a polling place, I left my firearm locked in my car. I have been in those offices before, and had never noticed a 30.06 sign. Now all entrances are posted with "compliant" signs. I believe there is a court in the building, but also the tax assessment and vehicle registration offices. The signs are at the entrances of the building.

I plan to discuss the issue with a friend who is a League City councilman. Anything else I can do to get this corrected?

The Texas legislature needs to address this issue in 2013. It should be just as simple as it is when a non 51% business post the wrong sign and you report it to TABC. They come in and make the business fix it. There should be an office you call and they go to the location and sets them straight.

JJVP wrote:Sentido to vote yesterday afternoon to the League City Annex in Calder Road. Since it was a polling place, I left my firearm locked in my car. I have been in those offices before, and had never noticed a 30.06 sign. Now all entrances are posted with "compliant" signs. I believe there is a court in the building, but also the tax assessment and vehicle registration offices. The signs are at the entrances of the building.

I plan to discuss the issue with a friend who is a League City councilman. Anything else I can do to get this corrected?

The Texas legislature needs to address this issue in 2013. It should be just as simple as it is when a non 51% business post the wrong sign and you report it to TABC. They come in and make the business fix it. There should be an office you call and they go to the location and sets them straight.

I've been wrong several times lately, but if there is a court in the building I think you're out of luck anyway.

C-dub wrote:

JJVP wrote:Sentido to vote yesterday afternoon to the League City Annex in Calder Road. Since it was a polling place, I left my firearm locked in my car. I have been in those offices before, and had never noticed a 30.06 sign. Now all entrances are posted with "compliant" signs. I believe there is a court in the building, but also the tax assessment and vehicle registration offices. The signs are at the entrances of the building.

I plan to discuss the issue with a friend who is a League City councilman. Anything else I can do to get this corrected?

The Texas legislature needs to address this issue in 2013. It should be just as simple as it is when a non 51% business post the wrong sign and you report it to TABC. They come in and make the business fix it. There should be an office you call and they go to the location and sets them straight.

I've been wrong several times lately, but if there is a court in the building I think you're out of luck anyway.

Yes, there is a court in the building. That does not make the whole building off limits, only the court. Read the original post by Charles.

The League City annex is run by Galveston County, not League City:

http://www.co.galveston.tx.us/tax_offic ... office.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't seen a county building that is not posted, including places that have nothing to do with courts or statutory government functions. They have been that way for years.

This topic was discussed on page 9 of this thread five years ago: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... ty#p112702" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jimf

JJVP wrote:

C-dub wrote:

JJVP wrote:Sentido to vote yesterday afternoon to the League City Annex in Calder Road. Since it was a polling place, I left my firearm locked in my car. I have been in those offices before, and had never noticed a 30.06 sign. Now all entrances are posted with "compliant" signs. I believe there is a court in the building, but also the tax assessment and vehicle registration offices. The signs are at the entrances of the building.

I plan to discuss the issue with a friend who is a League City councilman. Anything else I can do to get this corrected?

The Texas legislature needs to address this issue in 2013. It should be just as simple as it is when a non 51% business post the wrong sign and you report it to TABC. They come in and make the business fix it. There should be an office you call and they go to the location and sets them straight.

I've been wrong several times lately, but if there is a court in the building I think you're out of luck anyway.

Yes, there is a court in the building. That does not make the whole building off limits, only the court. Read the original post by Charles.

If you are referring to this post from Charles, I think there is a difference between the city that has done this by putting a "clerk's" office in City Hall and declaring it off limits than an actual Court. Again, I could be wrong, but I thought the intent of this request was to point out how the statute was being abused by cities, not that it was being applied incorrectly. I believe, that his example of a city putting a court clerk's office in City Hall and declaring the entire building off limits is legal, but severely abuses and takes advantage of the statute.

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.

(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;

C-dub wrote: If you are referring to this post from Charles, I think there is a difference between the city that has done this by putting a "clerk's" office in City Hall and declaring it off limits than an actual Court. Again, I could be wrong, but I thought the intent of this request was to point out how the statute was being abused by cities, not that it was being applied incorrectly. I believe, that his example of a city putting a court clerk's office in City Hall and declaring the entire building off limits is legal, but severely abuses and takes advantage of the statute.

(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;

I would contend that the highlighted portion is a distinction without a difference. If it's being mis-applied, it's being abused.

sjfcontrol wrote:

C-dub wrote: If you are referring to this post from Charles, I think there is a difference between the city that has done this by putting a "clerk's" office in City Hall and declaring it off limits than an actual Court. Again, I could be wrong, but I thought the intent of this request was to point out how the statute was being abused by cities, not that it was being applied incorrectly. I believe, that his example of a city putting a court clerk's office in City Hall and declaring the entire building off limits is legal, but severely abuses and takes advantage of the statute.

(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;

I would contend that the highlighted portion is a distinction without a difference. If it's being mis-applied, it's being abused.

Maybe. I meant that a city doing this was correctly applying the law by making the entire building off limits, but taking advantage of it by putting something in there that wouldn't normally be there.

C-dub wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

C-dub wrote: If you are referring to this post from Charles, I think there is a difference between the city that has done this by putting a "clerk's" office in City Hall and declaring it off limits than an actual Court. Again, I could be wrong, but I thought the intent of this request was to point out how the statute was being abused by cities, not that it was being applied incorrectly. I believe, that his example of a city putting a court clerk's office in City Hall and declaring the entire building off limits is legal, but severely abuses and takes advantage of the statute.

(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;

I would contend that the highlighted portion is a distinction without a difference. If it's being mis-applied, it's being abused.

Maybe. I meant that a city doing this was correctly applying the law by making the entire building off limits, but taking advantage of it by putting something in there that wouldn't normally be there.

I would like to think that since the definition of 'premises' is "...building or portion of a building...", that they would be restricted to making only the smallest reasonable portion of that building off limits. I suppose it would take a court case to set precedent.

sjfcontrol wrote: I would like to think that since the definition of 'premises' is "...building or portion of a building...", that they would be restricted to making only the smallest reasonable portion of that building off limits. I suppose it would take a court case to set precedent.

Hopefully, but given that Charles originally posed that question back in 2005 and it still hasn't been resolved by a court or legislature I don't know. Maybe it's just been low priority and they are planning on getting around to it next year.

If I'm not going into the courtroom, or offices used by the court, I keep it concealed. No problems so far.

sjfcontrol wrote:I would like to think that since the definition of 'premises' is "...building or portion of a building...", that they would be restricted to making only the smallest reasonable portion of that building off limits. I suppose it would take a court case to set precedent.

I agree that this will take some court precedent, if it does not exist from some other field already. The problem with the phrase, as I see it, is that it implies a choice and does not specify who gets to make the choice. If I am in charge of a building that has several offices and one court in it, do I get to decide if it is the whole building or just the portion of the building?

I am sure that the thought process was to make it just the portion necessary, but where I am most familiar with this type of thing it only applies to the portion if the other portions are under someone else's control. That would be a liquor license for a store in a strip center or mall, where the whole building would not be considered the licensed premise because other tenants get to make their own rules. But a bar in a bowling alley could make the whole building the licensed premise if the bar is part of the bowling alley business (not a contractor).

The John P. McGovern Museum of Health and Medical Science has, what appears to be, a valid 30.06 sign posted. I'm not sure, but I thought most of the museums in the Hermann Park area of Houston were public.

MikeStone wrote:The John P. McGovern Museum of Health and Medical Science has, what appears to be, a valid 30.06 sign posted. I'm not sure, but I thought most of the museums in the Hermann Park area of Houston were public.

http://www.thehealthmuseum.org/ManageDe ... goryid=423" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a citizens committee consisting of George Morse, Oveta Culp Hobby, Morgan Davis and Gail Whitcomb recommended that permanent health exhibits be constructed for public display. With funds raised through public contributions to the polio immunization program, along with contributions from physicians and a grant from Houston Endowment Inc., the Harris County Medical Society initiated plans to construct public health education exhibits.

http://www.mhms.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

need to check county Appraisal District property records to see who owns the land

http://www.hcad.org/records/Real.asp?search=addr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://www.hcad.org/records/details.asp ... ld=1&tab=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Owner Name &
Mailing Address: MUSEUM MEDICAL SCIENCE
PO BOX 88087
HOUSTON TX 77288-0087

Doesn't appear that that museum is Gov't property, though I assume most others are probably.