Nueces county to ban OC in county buildings

[roadkill]

I need to stop by the corpus city hall soon. One of the four entrances has been closed since 9/11 for security and now two entrances are employee only leaving only one for the public. They have now installed metal detectors. Going to be interesting to see how they handle conceal carry and especially open carry given the counties stance on it thus far. The appraisal district also has a metal detector and at one time was posted 30.06. The interesting thing about them is the detector is maned by a private security guard. Something tells me city hall will be the same. We aren't required to show them ID. Wonder if someone with OTC leanings will push that issue here or in another location/county? I just feel since open carry is now legal local governments are trying anything they can to try and prohibit it.

[C-dub]

At first glance, the law does seem to be specific to 30.06 (concealed carry) but does not mention 30.07 (open carry). I've heard it said that this bill was passed before the Open Carry bill was passed, which is why it doesn't specifically mention 30.07. However, even though it doesn't specifically mention 30.07, there may be enough wiggle room to apply it anyway.

SB273
Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

With the passing of Open Carry, there is no longer such a thing as a "concealed handgun license"; it's a "license to carry." Therefore, that specific phrase is either completely null-and-void (no such thing any longer), or it must be interpreted as "...or by any sign expressly referring to ... a license to carry." If the later, then it seems to equally apply to open carry, which is allowed by the same license as concealed carry.

INAL, but it's an interesting thought.

I hope my CHL doesn't cease to exist. It says it is good until my birthday in 2017.

[Glockster]

I need to stop by the corpus city hall soon. One of the four entrances has been closed since 9/11 for security and now two entrances are employee only leaving only one for the public. They have now installed metal detectors. Going to be interesting to see how they handle conceal carry and especially open carry given the counties stance on it thus far. The appraisal district also has a metal detector and at one time was posted 30.06. The interesting thing about them is the detector is maned by a private security guard. Something tells me city hall will be the same. We aren't required to show them ID. Wonder if someone with OTC leanings will push that issue here or in another location/county? I just feel since open carry is now legal local governments are trying anything they can to try and prohibit it.

Interesting point as under the law, private security lacks any legal authority under that code to not only demand your license, but also probably other related things.

[chasfm11]

I need to stop by the corpus city hall soon. One of the four entrances has been closed since 9/11 for security and now two entrances are employee only leaving only one for the public. They have now installed metal detectors. Going to be interesting to see how they handle conceal carry and especially open carry given the counties stance on it thus far. The appraisal district also has a metal detector and at one time was posted 30.06. The interesting thing about them is the detector is maned by a private security guard. Something tells me city hall will be the same. We aren't required to show them ID. Wonder if someone with OTC leanings will push that issue here or in another location/county? I just feel since open carry is now legal local governments are trying anything they can to try and prohibit it.

The State Capital also has metal detectors but a provision for LTC. Perhaps the private security has been given instructions for LTC though I understand that is not likely. If the entrance is not 30.06 posted, no laws have been broken if you approach the metal detector and display your CHL and see what happens from there. If you are rejected, that is obviously a violation and you could follow the pictures/complaint process.

[roadkill]

They went ahead and did it.

http://www.kristv.com/story/30801208/nu ... courthouse

[Seabear]

They changed their mind today. LOL They decided to follow the law. Said they would wait a few months and see if there were any changes in the law.

[RHenriksen]

They changed their mind today. LOL They decided to follow the law. Said they would wait a few months and see if there were any changes in the law.

Link??

[VoiceofReason]

Texas needs to have a law like Florida's pre-emption statute with penalties.

The 2014 Florida Statutes 790.33 (3)PROHIBITIONS; PENALTIES.—
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.

That would stop a lot of the "games".

[Papa_Tiger]

Texas needs to have a law like Florida's pre-emption statute with penalties.

The 2014 Florida Statutes 790.33 (3)PROHIBITIONS; PENALTIES.—
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.

That would stop a lot of the "games".

May I leave you with this? SB 273

[oljames3]

They changed their mind today. LOL They decided to follow the law. Said they would wait a few months and see if there were any changes in the law.

Link??

http://www.kristv.com/story/30810551/on ... courthouse

Or Google Nueces county reverses ban.

[C-dub]

They changed their mind today. LOL They decided to follow the law. Said they would wait a few months and see if there were any changes in the law.

A few months? Are they really that clueless? It'll be more than a few months if there is any change at all.

[Seabear]

LOL C Dub, I'm just relaying what gets reported. Actually those were the words of Loyd Neal.

[dhoobler]

At first glance, the law does seem to be specific to 30.06 (concealed carry) but does not mention 30.07 (open carry). I've heard it said that this bill was passed before the Open Carry bill was passed, which is why it doesn't specifically mention 30.07. However, even though it doesn't specifically mention 30.07, there may be enough wiggle room to apply it anyway.

SB273
Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

With the passing of Open Carry, there is no longer such a thing as a "concealed handgun license"; it's a "license to carry." Therefore, that specific phrase is either completely null-and-void (no such thing any longer), or it must be interpreted as "...or by any sign expressly referring to ... a license to carry." If the later, then it seems to equally apply to open carry, which is allowed by the same license as concealed carry.

INAL, but it's an interesting thought.

I wonder how long it will be before some local government entity (Hays County) will claim that they cannot be fined for posting a 30.06 sign because SB 273 makes reference to "Concealed Handgun License". They will claim that they are excluding "License to Carry", which is not referenced by SB 273.

[Glockster]

At first glance, the law does seem to be specific to 30.06 (concealed carry) but does not mention 30.07 (open carry). I've heard it said that this bill was passed before the Open Carry bill was passed, which is why it doesn't specifically mention 30.07. However, even though it doesn't specifically mention 30.07, there may be enough wiggle room to apply it anyway.

SB273
Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

With the passing of Open Carry, there is no longer such a thing as a "concealed handgun license"; it's a "license to carry." Therefore, that specific phrase is either completely null-and-void (no such thing any longer), or it must be interpreted as "...or by any sign expressly referring to ... a license to carry." If the later, then it seems to equally apply to open carry, which is allowed by the same license as concealed carry.

INAL, but it's an interesting thought.

I wonder how long it will be before some local government entity (Hays County) will claim that they cannot be fined for posting a 30.06 sign because SB 273 makes reference to "Concealed Handgun License". They will claim that they are excluding "License to Carry", which is not referenced by SB 273.

And that's why I've renamed my handgun. No longer a handgun, it is a Mitch. And now seeing that they have no laws or signs prohibiting Mitch, I am good to go!