Anyone from Erath County?

[ELB]

I would like to know which non-profit(s) the Erath County Attorney is referring to:

Request for Opinion RQ-0097-KP, 11 Feb 2016

Dear Attorney General Paxton:

I seek an opinion concerning the ability of a non-profit agency to restrict the entry onto their
property by persons with a handgun pursuant to Penal Code Section 30.06/30.07 and Texas Government
Code Section 411.209.

Within our county we have at least two non-profit agencies that have offices located on land
owned by the City. The non-profit agency is the only entity located on that property, no governmental
offices are located on the property. The City has no authority as to the operation of the non-profit and
all decisions are made by an independent board of directors.

In previous Attorney General Opinions you have stated that a governmental agency can only
prohibit handguns from certain areas such as courtrooms. There is some confusion over the question of
whether the fact that if the land is owned by the City means that it is governmental property despite the
fact that the City has no authority over the business being operated on that property. The Texas Municipal
League has stated that they believe that the fact that the City owns the land makes it governmental
property and you cannot prohibit the carrying of handguns onto the property. They take this position
because of the language in the statute which states: "premises or other place owned or leased by the
governmenta! entity".

Question

1. Can handguns be prohibited by a non-profit entity when that entitles offices are located
on property owned by a City or governmental agency?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, or if you require additional
information, please do not hesitate to call.

I think I could answer her questions, but I'll defer to the AG, since he's getting paid for it.

[chasfm11]

Perhaps a more basic question is: What is a completely uncontrolled non-profit doing on city property? What would happen if an accident of some sort occurred on the property? I''d bet that the deeper pockets of the land owner would suddenly become part of the equation.

[Jusme]

This was sent by the County Attorney? I can't believe that he doesn't have a better grasp of the law than that. The law clearly states that if it is governmental property and is not otherwise prohibited, there can be no prohibitions to carry by LTC holders. This sounds like he is trying to pander to the controllers of the property.

I doubt that he will get the answer he hopes for.JMHO

[ELB]

Perhaps a more basic question is: What is a completely uncontrolled non-profit doing on city property? What would happen if an accident of some sort occurred on the property? I''d bet that the deeper pockets of the land owner would suddenly become part of the equation.

The city is saying it doesn't control the operation, not that there are no rules. It's possible they provide the land as long as certain provisions are me, e.g. liability insurance, indemnification for the city if something bad does happen, workers comp for employees, no illegal activities, that sort of thing, without getting involved in the operations. My VFD has a contract with the county, and they have certain requirements we have to meet, but they don't tell us how to fight fires, how many trucks we can have, what type of gear, appoint officers, how to train, etc. In our case we are not on county land, but there are VFDs that operate out of city or county owned facilities.

I'm curious at to what types of non-profits are on the land -- Humane Society shelter? Thrift store? Presumably they want to post no-carry. As far as I understand the law, they are out of luck....

[ELB]

This was sent by the County Attorney? I can't believe that he doesn't have a better grasp of the law than that. The law clearly states that if it is governmental property and is not otherwise prohibited, there can be no prohibitions to carry by LTC holders. This sounds like he is trying to pander to the controllers of the property.

I doubt that he will get the answer he hopes for.JMHO

Oh, he probably does, this is just a Hail Mary pass to keep his constituents happy. Be interesting to know what the non-profits are, if they have already posted (I'll bet they have, especially if they have been there a long time), and lob a 30.06 sign complaint into the mix.

[chasfm11]

Perhaps a more basic question is: What is a completely uncontrolled non-profit doing on city property? What would happen if an accident of some sort occurred on the property? I''d bet that the deeper pockets of the land owner would suddenly become part of the equation.

The city is saying it doesn't control the operation, not that there are no rules. It's possible they provide the land as long as certain provisions are me, e.g. liability insurance, indemnification for the city if something bad does happen, workers comp for employees, no illegal activities, that sort of thing, without getting involved in the operations. My VFD has a contract with the county, and they have certain requirements we have to meet, but they don't tell us how to fight fires, how many trucks we can have, what type of gear, appoint officers, how to train, etc. In our case we are not on county land, but there are VFDs that operate out of city or county owned facilities.

I'm curious at to what types of non-profits are on the land -- Humane Society shelter? Thrift store? Presumably they want to post no-carry. As far as I understand the law, they are out of luck....

If there are rules, one of them needs to be compliance with State law. There is no getting around the fact that it is government owned land. What about other laws or even State agency rules? Any non-profit is going to have it own operation and at least the finances should be kept within the non-profit. My point was the in granting the use of the land, a government entity cannot absolve itself of all responsibility. The zoos are in the same position.

[srothstein]

I cannot tell from the letter if the County Attorney is asking for a backup of his opinion that it is legal or of his opinion that it is illegal. But I think this is going to be a very important precedent letter that may take more research than we think to get an answer. I read the law as being less than clear in this situation. The criminal trespass sections do not apply on land owned or leased by the government. The owned part is clear, but leasing can work two ways. Is the intent of the legislature to prevent guns from being on land owned by the government but leased to another entity, such as a private business or a non-profit organization? Or was the intent to prevent the government from getting around the ban by leasing office spaces instead of buying them? To further confuse the issue, the government code does NOT say the tenant cannot post such a sign. It is very specific that the political subdivision of the state may not give such notice.

This is going to be important because this is not the only place with this situation. IIRC, Austin had a couple buildings on city owned property that they claimed were not prohibited because the city did not own the building, but just the land. I am confident that there are many others also. This may be a good decision to ask for.

[ELB]

If there are rules, one of them needs to be compliance with State law. There is no getting around the fact that it is government owned land. ...

I agree with this. I was taking small issue with the "no rules" statement. I believe that the county was emphasizing the fact that they don't have operational control of the non-profit to see if that makes any difference as to posting 30.06/07 signs. I think the law is very plain that it does not, and I expect the AG to tell them that when he replies.

[chasfm11]

This is going to be important because this is not the only place with this situation. IIRC, Austin had a couple buildings on city owned property that they claimed were not prohibited because the city did not own the building, but just the land. I am confident that there are many others also. This may be a good decision to ask for.

Is the Perot museum in that situation? I'm pretty sure that it is city of Dallas land but I wasn't sure if the building itself is owned by the city. The 30.06 sign there has been up and down. I think it is up again now.

[Soccerdad1995]

The letter contradicts itself.

I seek an opinion concerning the ability of a non-profit agency to restrict the entry onto their
property by persons with a handgun pursuant to Penal Code Section 30.06/30.07 and Texas Government
Code Section 411.209.

Within our county we have at least two non-profit agencies that have offices located on land
owned by the City.

If it is "their" (the non-profits') property, then the same property can't be owned by the City. Unless maybe the City is the non-profit????

[ELB]

The letter contradicts itself.

I seek an opinion concerning the ability of a non-profit agency to restrict the entry onto their
property by persons with a handgun pursuant to Penal Code Section 30.06/30.07 and Texas Government
Code Section 411.209.

Within our county we have at least two non-profit agencies that have offices located on land
owned by the City.

If it is "their" (the non-profits') property, then the same property can't be owned by the City. Unless maybe the City is the non-profit????

I think this is just slightly imprecise usage, I wouldn't read anything too deep into it.

[ELB]

So I guess nobody on the forum is from Erath County?

[Soccerdad1995]

The letter contradicts itself.

I seek an opinion concerning the ability of a non-profit agency to restrict the entry onto their
property by persons with a handgun pursuant to Penal Code Section 30.06/30.07 and Texas Government
Code Section 411.209.

Within our county we have at least two non-profit agencies that have offices located on land
owned by the City.

If it is "their" (the non-profits') property, then the same property can't be owned by the City. Unless maybe the City is the non-profit????

I think this is just slightly imprecise usage, I wouldn't read anything too deep into it.

I think it is intentionally used in an attempt to frame the argument. The non-profit can legally ban CC/OC from property they own, so having the first reference imply that, frames the argument. It would be a much weaker sounding argument if he said "can a non-profit ban carry on city owned property that they are leasing?".

Words have meaning, and any lawyer worth their salt is going to be very deliberate in their phrasing.

[joe817]

As far as non-profits go in Erath county, there are:

"Nonprofit & 501C Organizations - Erath County TX

Number of Organizations in this County 284
Reported Asset Amount Total $74,167,689
Reported Income Amount Total $77,043,795
Number of Zip Codes in this County 8 "

http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organizat ... -texas.asp

In quickly reviewing their listing, I saw many duplication's(eg: Freemasons - 7; Habitat for Humanity - 3; Lions Club - 4; 4-H clubs - 14). Also MANY churches and Fraternities & Sororities (on the Tarleton State campus). Several volunteer F.D.'s.

Which one the attorney is referring to is anyone's guess.

[ELB]

As far as non-profits go in Erath county, there are:

"Nonprofit & 501C Organizations - Erath County TX

Number of Organizations in this County 284
Reported Asset Amount Total $74,167,689
Reported Income Amount Total $77,043,795
Number of Zip Codes in this County 8 "

http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organizat ... -texas.asp

In quickly reviewing their listing, I saw many duplication's(eg: Freemasons - 7; Habitat for Humanity - 3; Lions Club - 4; 4-H clubs - 14). Also MANY churches and Fraternities & Sororities (on the Tarleton State campus). Several volunteer F.D.'s.

Which one the attorney is referring to is anyone's guess.

I looked around a bit as well, and I know their Humane Society is a non-profit that is paid by the city and county, and built structures with private donations on city owned land. Been there 40 years. It would not be surprising if that's one of the entities that the attorney has in mind. I suspect whoever it is has had no-carry signs up for a long time, and doesn't want to take them down just because they are sitting on government property.

The situation this letter is asking about is a non-profit sitting on city (not county) land, so that narrows it down a bit. The attorney says "at least two", which implies to me she knows of two, and is hedging in case there is another. So not so many. Something sitting on public land is likely to be engaged in something seen as a public service that in other cities might be done by the government itself, like the Humane Society animal shelter, a volunteer fire department, something of that nature.