Alvin City Hall Parking Lot - Posted

[terryg]

I don't think I have been inside of the City Hall building since setting up my water service when we first moved to Alvin about 15 years ago. But I have made a few trips through the parking lot to the window to pay my water bill (when I forget to pay it in time online). As I drove through today, I noticed for the first time, that they have tried to post the parking lots. The bolts holding the sign to the post are rusted - so I know they are not new - I had just never noticed them.



I do not know if the City Hall building has a court in it or not. But, if I understand correctly, it shouldn't matter for the parking lot anyway. Right? If so, then I see 2 problems. 1. The sign would not be the correct wording. 2. The lot is city property and so could not be posted anyway. Correct? Am I missing something?

[RPB]

That wording is fine to give a 30.05 notice to persons without a CHL
Yes, nothing I know of prevents a city from posting a 30.05 notice


Good thing 30.05 doesn't apply (a defense exists) to CHLs if the reason is for a gun of the type licensed to carry.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
30.05
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

And also that

30.06
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

That's my layman's opinion
===============================================
The part about "regardless if a CHL or not" is unenforceable. You could send city Council/mayor etc the "form letter" advising them/putting them on notice that they might face a costly Federal civil rights suit if an officer without proper knowledge tried to enforce it since a "good faith" arrest can not be made for something which is not illegal.
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=34571&p=591967&hil ... r+#p591967" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48049&p=588096&hili ... r+#p588096" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Maybe they'll buy new signs.

================================================
As far as asking about 1) MPA (unlicensed carriers in car) or 2) Employees of the city being terminated.... that's another matter I'm not addressing here.

[boba]

Applies to all firearms for most people. Applies to CHL with rifles or shotguns in the trunk.

Technically it also applies to federal LEO who aren't peace officers in Texas.

[RPB]

Applies to all firearms for most people. Applies to CHL with rifles or shotguns in the trunk.

Technically it also applies to federal LEO who aren't peace officers in Texas.

Good points I meant to make and forgot

I miss the olden days when you could just leave the shotgun in the shotgun rack in the back window, just because you could.

Also, would apply to ---> no Semi-autos in the car if'n you only get a revolver CHL license.

to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

[Heartland Patriot]

Any thoughts on if this is a "bluff" by the city? That is, they KNOW its wrong, and unenforceable against CHLers, but they hope that people who read it, including CHLers, will be intimidated enough to comply? And since it IS wrong, I wouldn't say one little thing to them about it. That's their "bad"!

[RPB]

Just guessing:
Either it's an old outdated sign, or the city doesn't know.
If they don't know any better, it would be worthwhile looking through Parks and Firearms ordinances and putting them on notice (via "form letter")
If they know what the law is, and no ordinances need changing, probably no one has read the sign in years and they are unaware what it even says It's probably become like the cobweb in the corner no one sees.

Alvin's Code of Ordinances http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientid=10357" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Actually, just quickly browsed the code, I see no law/city ordinance which needs repealing as nothing forbids a CHL from being armed there as far as I can tell. Perhaps they updated their code of ordinances, and no one read that sign in so long it got overlooked.

Now if there's (offices utilized by) a Municipal Court in the building, I'm not talking about buildings ... but the parking lot should be fine even with an old rusted outdated sign (my layman's opinion)

That sign is very similar to the one on My County's Tax Appraisal District, which the County Criminal Prosecuting Attorney "considers" a Court because they have "Administrative" (non-judicial) "hearings" over property valuations with Real Estate Appraisers (instead of a Judge) ... I strongly disagree with him.(my very educated, layman's opinion)

[Bullwhip]

Applies to all firearms for most people. Applies to CHL with rifles or shotguns in the trunk.

Technically it also applies to federal LEO who aren't peace officers in Texas.

Not even that I dont' think.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.229.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That reads to me like they cant' "regulate the carrying of a firearm" by a CHL at all and only non CHL's at parks, public goverment meetings, political meetings, and athletic events. Posting a 30.05 sign would be regulating, wouldn't it? No authority.

[Purplehood]

From a CHL point-of-view, why should I care?

Am I overlooking something?

[Scott in Houston]

Any thoughts on if this is a "bluff" by the city? That is, they KNOW its wrong, and unenforceable against CHLers, but they hope that people who read it, including CHLers, will be intimidated enough to comply? And since it IS wrong, I wouldn't say one little thing to them about it. That's their "bad"!

I would agree with this if it were a private institution that could later go and correct their mistake and do harm by posting a valid sign, but...

Since this is a city that has no right to attempt this or to intimidate, I would definitely go after them with letters and notification. They can't come back, and with legal authority, post a correctly worded sign that is enforceable, so keep going after them until they get it right. Don't let government attempt to intimidate, ever.

[terryg]

From a CHL point-of-view, why should I care?

Am I overlooking something?

Well because, as a CHL holder and a resident of the city that receives city services - I do, on occasion, drive right past that sign. Seeing as how the sign does reference CHL holders, that makes it applicable to me - legal or not. From everything I know, that sign does not carry any legal weight for a CHL holder - but it still references me. The only thing that will matter, if there was even an incident, is what the LEO onsite will believe. And if there is legalize sounding verbiage on a sign that I drove right past - it might not matter what the actual law says as to whether or not I take a ride.

Now, I may decide not to do anything with the affirmation I received by asking the question. I may decide not to contact anyone at the city to rectify the issue. But I at least have gained some confidence and reassurance that I am within my legal rights to ignore it. And that can go a long way in the event there was even an issue.

That is why I should care - I am not sure that you need to care.

[Purplehood]

I don't have a problem with you (or anyone) bringing this up. I apologize if you thought that I do.

However, I would simply ignore the sign.

[RoyGBiv]

Any thoughts on if this is a "bluff" by the city? That is, they KNOW its wrong, and unenforceable against CHLers, but they hope that people who read it, including CHLers, will be intimidated enough to comply? And since it IS wrong, I wouldn't say one little thing to them about it. That's their "bad"!

I would agree with this if it were a private institution that could later go and correct their mistake and do harm by posting a valid sign, but...

Since this is a city that has no right to attempt this or to intimidate, I would definitely go after them with letters and notification. They can't come back, and with legal authority, post a correctly worded sign that is enforceable, so keep going after them until they get it right. Don't let government attempt to intimidate, ever.

If a place is posted but the posting is not enforceable (Government premises cannot be prohibited as in this case), every effort should be made to have the issue corrected. Why? 1. Because a BG may be encouraged by the "defense free zone" sign and 2. because a CHL holder may be intimidated by the sign. Simply, it works to our advantage to complain about this sign, we don't have anything to lose.

If a private premise is posted incorrectly, it is not in our best interest to advise the property holder of their error since a corrected posting would be a valid prohibition. Example, my Bank has a gunbusters sign posted next to some non-compliant language. I complained to the branch manager about it ("Will that sign make a bad guy turn around, or will it make him feel better that a good guy won't have a gun inside"), but did not mention to them that the sign was non compliant.

IMO

[RPB]

Private businesses/property with unenforceable signs, I stay quiet.

Government Property (OUR property) with unenforceable signs I'll speak up.
==========================
UPDATE

That sign is very similar to the one on My County's Tax Appraisal District, (on the downtown Courthouse Square, along with restaurants, Library, Bank, Antique shop, Office supply Store etc etc ...) which the County Criminal Prosecuting Attorney "considers" a Court because they have "Administrative" (non-judicial) "hearings" over property valuations with Real Estate Appraisers (instead of a Judge) ... I strongly disagree with him.(my very educated, layman's opinion)

UPDATE.... sign has now been removed
Burnet County Appraisal District HAD that sign on the door, 3 years ago, and I mentioned it to the employees, they still had the sign 2 years ago, so I called the County Criminal Prosecutor who said he thinks appraisal districts are Courts because like the restaurant, office supply store etc, it's on the Courthouse square and they have administrative "hearings" there (with real estate appraisers, not Judges)

Last year, I mentioned it to a County Judge who's husband was running for District Judge (both have CHLs and are VERY knowledgeable )

Went and paid my House taxes minutes ago, took camera to photo the sign .... doors now have no sign except the hours they are open and one pointing to envelopes and drop box for after hours payments. No such signs inside either.

I liberated my County/City from the expense of a potential suit for violating civil rights.

Sad though .... never got a picture of the sign they removed, but it was very similar to that one..
===================================================================================

[Tamie]

Applies to all firearms for most people. Applies to CHL with rifles or shotguns in the trunk.

Technically it also applies to federal LEO who aren't peace officers in Texas.

Not even that I dont' think.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.229.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That reads to me like they cant' "regulate the carrying of a firearm" by a CHL at all and only non CHL's at parks, public goverment meetings, political meetings, and athletic events. Posting a 30.05 sign would be regulating, wouldn't it? No authority.

The signs at gun shows on city or county property aren't valid for unlicensed people either? Priceless!

[glbedd53]

I gave a copy of this thread to the city manager and he said he and the city attorney would look at it.