Can Lavaca-Navidad River Authority ban licensed carry?

[ELB]

Particularly open carry.

The LNRA thinks that because

Chapter 25 of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Code. Pursuant to Parks & Wildlife Code section
25.006, a river authority may exercise the powers granted by Chapter 25 for the regulation of its
water-related park areas "without regard to any provision, restriction, or limitation of any general
or special law or specific act." TEX. PARKS & WILD. CODE ANN. § 25.006 (b).

that other prohibitions on local entities regulating firearms do not apply and therefore they can regulate (prohibit) the carry of firearms on LNRA lands. They are also pulling support from an old AG opinion from 1995. The letter starts of by mentioning open carry, but ends referring to firearms generally.

They are asking the AG's opinion on this: https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinio ... 0077KP.pdf

[JP171]

my belief because of the AG's opinion to the rest of TPW is no they cannot, the AG already told TPW they could not so the river authority as a government agency cannot either. so I think the AG is going to tell them to go suck eggs, however in light of his assistants stellar work in getting out violation letters and the goofy opinions that have been rendered to some places ain't nuthin gonna happen even if they put up the signs they take em down one day and back up the next. I mean hey we're a educational amusement park day care institution, yep that'll cover all the bases and Kenny will just sit there with his slack jaw catching flies

[brhalltx]

I mean hey we're a educational amusement park day care institution

You forgot professional sporting event... There could be a professional bass fisherman out there.

[Liberty]

The preemption laws would take precedence over these rules, but if the property is actually owned by the Army Corp of Engineers It would be illegal to carry there. I've never heard of the local agencies enforcing the Feds rules though.

I am not a lawyer. and not as smart as some of the others here.

[ELB]

In the letter, provided at the link, LNRA provides the references to the part of the law they think gives them this power. They note that LCRA cannot regulate licensed carry because the Legislature put in an exception in the part of the Parks and Wildlife code that governs the LCRA. The LNRA notes that a similar exception was not put in the part of the code that governs them.

The AG is of course properly restricted to rendering professional opinions on the law as it is written, not as some wish it were written. Arguments for the latter need to be addressed to the Legislature instead of kicking the AG in the teeth for doing his job. In those areas where he has latitude in interpretation, like what is essential to the operation of a court, he has cut a pretty 2A friendly line. As well as juggling some SCOTUS cases at the same time...

[dhoobler]

If they haven't figured this out yet, they soon will. All they have to do is request an AG opinion and they just bought themselves six months.

[jakjr]

What is the current legality of concealed carry on LNRA property? I am planning a camping trip next month to Texana park and am confused about the wording in their park rules.

The park rules state: "It is unlawful for any person to illegally possess, display or discharge a rifle, sidearm, shotgun, archery equipment, BB or pellet gun in the park or campground."

The wording makes it seems there would be a law against possessing any of the listed items on their property but I am wondering if this is just selective wording to trick people into thinking it is actually illegal.

Park rules for referance

[MeMelYup]

What is the current legality of concealed carry on LNRA property? I am planning a camping trip next month to Texana park and am confused about the wording in their park rules.

The park rules state: "It is unlawful for any person to illegally possess, display or discharge a rifle, sidearm, shotgun, archery equipment, BB or pellet gun in the park or campground."

The wording makes it seems there would be a law against possessing any of the listed items on their property but I am wondering if this is just selective wording to trick people into thinking it is actually illegal.

Park rules for referance

How can it be illegal if you are licensed by the state? If the state reserves the right to make firearms laws, how can state agencies make firearm laws? Wouldn't state agencies fall under the same restrictions as counties and cities?

[ScottDLS]

I think the relevant question is, what are they going to charge you with if you violate their regulation? Even if the AG lets the regulation stand. The comparable LCRA issue along with the 21 year old AG opinion was superseded in 2003, when the exception for government property was added to 30.06.

[twomillenium]

What is the current legality of concealed carry on LNRA property? I am planning a camping trip next month to Texana park and am confused about the wording in their park rules.

The park rules state: "It is unlawful for any person to illegally possess, display or discharge a rifle, sidearm, shotgun, archery equipment, BB or pellet gun in the park or campground."

The wording makes it seems there would be a law against possessing any of the listed items on their property but I am wondering if this is just selective wording to trick people into thinking it is actually illegal.

Park rules for referance

Park rules say "illegally possess" , to me (IANAL) that means if you cannot legally possess.
That would be akin to posting a sign that says, "It is unlawful for any person to illegally possess tennis shoes.", the key word/s are illegally possess. The sign would be correct.
Just like if there were a sign that says, "It is unlawful for a person to illegally rob a bank."

[DocV]

They are probably an amusement park.

[ScottDLS]

They are probably an amusement park.

Not in a county with over 1mm residents, so they don't meet the criteria.

[ELB]

What is the current legality of concealed carry on LNRA property? I am planning a camping trip next month to Texana park and am confused about the wording in their park rules.
...

I think they are probably not going to find the AG agreeable with their arguments. As a practical matter, if I was going to LNRA, I would carry like I normally do -- that is, concealed carry -- and not worry about it. The specific question in their letter to the AG is about open carry -- that's what seems to concern them, so if you're worried about it, don't wave the red flag at the bull.

However, following the argument in their letter to its logical conclusion, it would appear they are saying the Legislature granted them the power to regulate firearms generally, in spite of any other law.

I think the relevant question is, what are they going to charge you with if you violate their regulation? Even if the AG lets the regulation stand. The comparable LCRA issue along with the 21 year old AG opinion was superseded in 2003, when the exception for government property was added to 30.06.

Probably charged with whatever they charge you with if you violate any of their other regs. Maybe tell you to leave, and if you don't go, trespassing?

I think they threw the Dan Morales opinion in at the end as a sort of lagniappe -- it is not the crux of their argument. There real argument is that the Legislature has granted the River Authorities broad powers to regulate their lands, regardless of other Texas statutes:

(b) A district may exercise the powers granted by this chapter without regard to any provision, restriction, or limitation of any general or special law or specific act and may exercise the powers granted by this chapter as an alternative to the powers of all other laws relating to the same subject or combine those powers in whole or in part. This chapter does not authorize any fee or charge for boat inspection, fishing, or other activity on the water of the state or the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

In the past the Legislature has specifically told the similar LCRA that it licensed concealed carry is legal on LCRA land, but apparently did not address the LNRA. And the most recent Legislature took the time and effort to once again notify LCRA via statute that licensed open carry as well as concealed carry is legal on LCRA lands -- and once again was silent about the LNRA. So they make a good argument that they can regulate firearms regardless of other statutes, including the 2003 (I think?) statute about government entities and licensed carry. There may be other laws or cases that negate this, and that's what the AG's staff gets paid to ferret out. I will be interested to see the answer.

[KLB]

Not in a county with over 1mm residents, so they don't meet the criteria.

Do mosquitoes count?

[KLB]

Now that I've read the request for opinion, I still don't know what the AG will say, but LNRA's argument is not frivolous on its face. Two different statutes in apparent conflict have to be reconciled. These things have to be worked out.

What LNRA thinks it's accomplishing, on the on the other hand, is hard for me to see. This can't be a big problem. I regularly visit Hallettsville, which is just up the road from Lake Texana, and I've yet to see anyone open carrying.

Updated: Here's a provision from the Code Construction Act:

Sec. 311.026. SPECIAL OR LOCAL PROVISION PREVAILS OVER GENERAL. (a) If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, the provisions shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both.

(b) If the conflict between the general provision and the special or local provision is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.

In this case, the general provision (local governments can't rely on 30.06) is more recent that the specific one (river authorities can regulate despite rules to the contrary). It's easy to interpret the river authority statute as being an exception to the carry statute. That works under (a) or (b) unless a court finds that the legislature manifestly intended that the carry statute prevail. Maybe there's legislative history on that. I don't know.