State Agencies that require or suggest anti-gun notice

[G.A. Heath]

To avoid hijacking the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services thread, I am starting this thread as suggested by cbunt1. I plan to use this information for my podcast, although if we gather enough correct information from verifiable sources I suspect that Charles Cotton might find it useful for legislative efforts. I want to create a list of State agencies that require or suggest license holders be prohibited from carrying or that may create an environment where a licensed business will find it easier to prohibit firearms.

To be Clear we know that the Following require or suggest such signage based on the associated links and/or email respons:
***Department of Family and Protective Services: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/r ... 46&rl=3707

Thank you for reaching out to child care licensing. Fire arms have always been prohibited in a licensed operation and that did not change with the new legislation. Operations have never been required to post signs regarding fire arms and that did not change with the 84th legislation. We have had a number of operations asking us if they can post signs. This is their own decision and all we have recommended is that they ensure they are incompliance with TPC 30.06 or 30.07 if it applies to their program. Child care licensing has not required signage previously and we do not with the new bills.

***Department of Ageing and Disability: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/r ... 19&rl=1921

I debated including the following because the TABC does not require signage and is required by law to act should a business allow the unlicensed possession of a firearm on their premises. With that said keep in mind that the following require some action on the part of the licensed business that may lead to signage to avoid contact with an armed party:
***Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission: Another member sent me the reply he got from TABC via email:

Under Sections 11.61(e) and 61.71(f) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business. This being the case, retailers should make arrangements to verify the License to Carry of anyone who possesses a handgun on their premises. Ultimately, how each business chooses to fulfil this requirement is up to them, but TABC is required by law to begin cancellation proceedings if a violation is found.

[cbunt1]

To be completely fair about the DFPS (Child-Care facilities), I haven't yet found a requirement for an actual posting in their rules yet, only a reference that firearms are prohibited by Administrative Rule.

[G.A. Heath]

To be completely fair about the DFPS (Child-Care facilities), I haven't yet found a requirement for an actual posting in their rules yet, only a reference that firearms are prohibited by Administrative Rule.

I clarified the OP, and will update it as more information becomes available. While DFPS doesn't require signage they do require a prohibition on the carry of firearms except by licensed law enforcement who are on duty. The link associated with them in the OP takes you to the applicable rule. The quote is from the email response I got from them.

[cbunt1]

I clarified the OP, and will update it as more information becomes available. While DFPS doesn't require signage they do require a prohibition on the carry of firearms except by licensed law enforcement who are on duty. The link associated with them in the OP takes you to the applicable rule. The quote is from the email response I got from them.

Ah, I see that now. From the tone of their response, they won't be requiring signage at this point, which is good.

I sincerely hope they don't decide to end-run the legislature like DADS is doing. I'm willing to give DADS benefit of the doubt at this point, but I'm not amused by the way it has been implemented in at least one inspection in the Houston area.

This is starting to smell a lot like the city/county/state property end-run questions.

[treadlightly]

I clarified the OP, and will update it as more information becomes available. While DFPS doesn't require signage they do require a prohibition on the carry of firearms except by licensed law enforcement who are on duty. The link associated with them in the OP takes you to the applicable rule. The quote is from the email response I got from them.

Food for thought. If my understanding of the law is correct, a government agency that discourages licensed carry where it is otherwise legal commits a crime.

But does the offending agency get a free ride if the turf they claim gun-free isn't really their own?

For instance, if the carry law doesn't prohibit licensed carry at a day care, which I believe it does not, wouldn't the DFPS be in violation of the law for forcing the issue?

They are discouraging licensed carry where its not prohibited by statute. DFPS may not own the property in question, and they may be taking no direct action, but by forcing anti-gun policy they are blocking gun rights.

For those who may recoil in horror at the thought of handguns at a day care, I share your general feeling but not your conclusion. One of the reasons I support everyone's right to carry is so we can defend our families. Our most defenseless members go to day care facilities, and I do not wish kidnappers (or worse) to trust such places to be soft targets.

If a politician's kids get to go to day care or school campuses where armed resistance to mayhem protects them, my kids deserve no less.

[rotor]

Isn't the following Texas law in your home now.

"While storing a loaded firearm, it must be in a place which cannot be accessed by a child under the age of 17, or secured with a trigger lock if there is reason to know that a child under 17 may gain access to the firearm."

Seems like they can do similar stuff in a child-care facility. Not saying that I agree, just that it is already law.

[cbunt1]

Isn't the following Texas law in your home now.

"While storing a loaded firearm, it must be in a place which cannot be accessed by a child under the age of 17, or secured with a trigger lock if there is reason to know that a child under 17 may gain access to the firearm."

Seems like they can do similar stuff in a child-care facility. Not saying that I agree, just that it is already law.

The Safe Storage and Access laws would, of course, apply in a Child-Care facility, but the Administrative Rule in question is a blanket prohibition (again, by Rule, not Law) against firearms.

In the context we're discussing, all safe-storage requirements are met since the gun(s) in question are completely controlled by the carrier.

For what it's worth, the administrative rule for an in-home child-care facility and a foster-care home/facility references only safe storage, not blanket prohibition.

Interestingly enough, the specific facility I'm working with is a Child-Care facility AND an accredited private school. Under terms of the private school, certain individuals have written authorization to carry (concealed) on premises, and THAT is perfectly legal. Again, I point out the difference between LAW and ADMINISTRATIVE RULE, but I find it interesting that the law around an otherwise prohibited (by statute) location is more permissive than administrative rule around an otherwise non-prohibited location.

[cbunt1]

Food for thought. If my understanding of the law is correct, a government agency that discourages licensed carry where it is otherwise legal commits a crime.

But does the offending agency get a free ride if the turf they claim gun-free isn't really their own?

I don't know if it really rises to the level of a "crime" but I can't help thinking it's wrong. My real thought is that our legislators wouldn't be real happy to find out how their clear intent is being ignored, especially in the case of hospitals and nursing homes where the initial prohibition for LTC was in place, then specifically removed.

And that's my real frustration -- If nursing homes (DADS) and day cares (DFPS) are intended to be off-limits, there are ways to make that happen legally, and clearly, just as schools and racetracks are. Writing law to specifically require 30.06/30.07 notice at a certain type of facility, essentially opening it to carry, then allowing an administrative rule that requires 30.06/30.07 notice by the facility doesn't relax carry rules--it only shifts the burden of compliance.

Although I don't like having more places I can't carry, I REALLY don't like having the burden of preventing my carry shifted to someone else -- it's not fair to the third party. As a responsible carrier, it's up to me to know where I can and can't carry my pistol(s), and while I'd rather not have more places statutorily off-limits, I'd also rather be in a position of KNOWING that if it's not off-limits it's fair game.

I'm still muddling over an actual position on this, and reserve the right to refine the above position statement, but my initial instinct is to be offended on behalf of our legislators, lobbyists, and supporting organizations who have worked so hard to legalize and normalize carry, and to reduce the places we can't carry in general.