HOT Fair in Waco not Allowing Carry of any Kind

[jason812]

It would appear that the HOT Fair and Rodeo is banning all kinds of carry including knives. The recent AG opinion has muddied murky waters. The fair board thinks they can ban carry because of the AG opinion and even references it in their decision to do so. They conveniently leave out the part that their signs are unenforceable. I don't think we had plans on going this year but this aggravates me. Also, every building on the grounds is posted with 30.06 & 30.07 signs which is also against the law.

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Waco-- ... 61691.html

[G.A. Heath]

It has not muddled the waters, it's just that some less than honest folks are claiming that it allows them to do things that it doesn't.

For 2017 we need to add a provision to the wrongful exclusion (Fines for Signs) law that will allow the AG to go after private entities who post and/or government bodies who lease to private entities that post. Additionally I think the law should require that all lease contracts for property owned by a government body have a provision stating that such postings are illegal and will be prosecuted by the AG and/or county/district attorney. I also think a provision should also be added (I don't think it has a snowballs chance in a Texas Summer's chance of passing) that would create civil liability for anyone enforcing an improper posting on government property (leased by a private entity or not).

[rotor]

It has not muddled the waters, it's just that some less than honest folks are claiming that it allows them to do things that it doesn't.

For 2017 we need to add a provision to the wrongful exclusion (Fines for Signs) law that will allow the AG to go after private entities who post and/or government bodies who lease to private entities that post. Additionally I think the law should require that all lease contracts for property owned by a government body have a provision stating that such postings are illegal and will be prosecuted by the AG and/or county/district attorney. I also think a provision should also be added (I don't think it has a snowballs chance in a Texas Summer's chance of passing) that would create civil liability for anyone enforcing an improper posting on government property (leased by a private entity or not).

I see a problem with all of this. Doesn't the Post office and other Federal agencies lease property from private groups and then the buildings come under the authority of the Federal laws (no guns)? What if they use the same logic that leasing from a State/City government entity allows private groups to place 30.06/30.07 (as they seem to be doing now)? Can we ever get legislation that will keep Texan's property ( we do own it ) from being restricted by private business that leases that property? This might be a loophole that we can't get by. Will the legislators make it a requirement that every lease of State/City owned property (we the people own it) have a clause banning gun carry restrictions? Sounds like a tough sell and I thought we had it until the recent AG ruling.

[treadlightly]

Wouldn't a rodeo be a pro sporting event and off limits without regard for signs or public property?

ETA - banning guns is pointless, particularly as well-vetted as we are. Banning knives is particularly moronic. An insult to rugged individualism.

[Ruark]

Banning knives is particularly moronic. An insult to rugged individualism.

Good grief. So all those cowboys, ranchers, etc. can't carry their Case pocket knives? Are the promoters from California or something?

[G.A. Heath]

Rotor, the premises leased by the FEDERAL government is not covered here, that would need to be addressed in the federal legislature. As for my comments I am discussing state law and property owned by the state and its political sub divisions.

Treadlightly, the Rodeo itself would be off limits not the entire fairgrounds.

[rotor]

Rotor, the premises leased by the FEDERAL government is not covered here, that would need to be addressed in the federal legislature. As for my comments I am discussing state law and property owned by the state and its political sub divisions.

Treadlightly, the Rodeo itself would be off limits not the entire fairgrounds.

I am just saying that precedent is already there. If the land is leased to the feds then fed law applies. Perhaps the argument is that municipal land leased to private business can also allow private business to set their own 30.06/30.07 requirements. Apparently that is what the AG decision is saying, yes?

[G.A. Heath]

Rotor, the premises leased by the FEDERAL government is not covered here, that would need to be addressed in the federal legislature. As for my comments I am discussing state law and property owned by the state and its political sub divisions.

Treadlightly, the Rodeo itself would be off limits not the entire fairgrounds.

I am just saying that precedent is already there. If the land is leased to the feds then fed law applies. Perhaps the argument is that municipal land leased to private business can also allow private business to set their own 30.06/30.07 requirements. Apparently that is what the AG decision is saying, yes?

Nope, it doesn't quite work that way. Lets say I buy a piece of property with a dead restriction prohibiting mobile homes. I lease it to your fifth cousin's brother-in-law from Oklahoma. Now he can not put a mobile home on it because the dead restriction is still there. Instead of mobile home lets say the dead restriction is no signs larger than 8.5x11 can be posted on the property. The same thing still applies, I can not grant him a right I do not have by leasing the property to him. While the 30.06/30.07 sign is not enforceable on property owned or leased by Texas or one of it's political sub-divisions, just because a group leases that property doesn't mean they gain rights that the owner lacks. The issue is that the AG has released an opinion that the private entity faces no penalty for posting property they lease but because they control the property via the lease the local government that owns it can not force them to take it down. The federal prohibition works because it affects property owned or leased by the federal government by law and in theory federal law supersedes state or local laws when they conflict so there is no precedent there just a different set of laws coming into play.

[rotor]

Rotor, the premises leased by the FEDERAL government is not covered here, that would need to be addressed in the federal legislature. As for my comments I am discussing state law and property owned by the state and its political sub divisions.

Treadlightly, the Rodeo itself would be off limits not the entire fairgrounds.

I am just saying that precedent is already there. If the land is leased to the feds then fed law applies. Perhaps the argument is that municipal land leased to private business can also allow private business to set their own 30.06/30.07 requirements. Apparently that is what the AG decision is saying, yes?

Nope, it doesn't quite work that way. Lets say I buy a piece of property with a dead restriction prohibiting mobile homes. I lease it to your fifth cousin's brother-in-law from Oklahoma. Now he can not put a mobile home on it because the dead restriction is still there. Instead of mobile home lets say the dead restriction is no signs larger than 8.5x11 can be posted on the property. The same thing still applies, I can not grant him a right I do not have by leasing the property to him. While the 30.06/30.07 sign is not enforceable on property owned or leased by Texas or one of it's political sub-divisions, just because a group leases that property doesn't mean they gain rights that the owner lacks. The issue is that the AG has released an opinion that the private entity faces no penalty for posting property they lease but because they control the property via the lease the local government that owns it can not force them to take it down. The federal prohibition works because it affects property owned or leased by the federal government by law and in theory federal law supersedes state or local laws when they conflict so there is no precedent there just a different set of laws coming into play.

The issue then is does the municipal entity pay a fine if the leased property places a 30.06/30.07 sign and you make a complaint to the municipal government and formal complaint to the AG. Apparently not according to the AG opinion. The sign may not be enforceable but the government agency leasing the property does not get fined and therefore does not need to have the signs removed. Correct me if I am wrong.

[thatguyoverthere]

... The recent AG opinion has muddied murky waters. ...

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable of the handgun laws in Texas. However, I personally would not risk carrying past these signs, or signs posted in other similar circumstances. And I could be wrong, but I believe most other license holders also would not risk carrying past these signs.

So the effect is that carry has been eliminated where it should not have been, and what recourse do we have?

Believe me, I do appreciate all the efforts that have been put in by many people over the years to get the good handgun carry laws that we have here in Texas. It's just that situations like these continue to frustrate us (or frustrate me, anyway!).

[jason812]

So after not mentioning going this year, the wife asked today if we were going to take the little banshee to the fair. It turns out I might be going. I have heard thru the grapevine that there are signs posted and they might or might not be wanding people. The wife does not want me to test the waters but I want to. My plan is to do what many have posted here about the state fair and hope the law enforcement liaison knows that the signs carry no weight, if people are being wanded. I will be carrying concealed.

[oohrah]

Well good luck, and let us know. My money is you will have to go back to your car.