School Athletic Complex Parking Lot Sign - legal?

[der Teufel]

SO, here's a sign that recently went up at Toney Burger Center in South Austin. There's a gym, football stadium, and baseball park there which are obviously off-limits, and I understand that if the parking lot is being used for a school-related activity (e.g. band practice) then that area of the lot is also off-limits. However, can they legitimately post the entire facility, parking lots and all, with permanent signs?

I notice they included a DPS logo for additional effect, although this property belongs to the Austin ISD.

[cbunt1]

I notice they included a DPS logo for additional effect, although this property belongs to the Austin ISD.

I wonder if the DPS might not have something to say about the use of their logo in this context...they're not real thrilled about the idea of instructors using it (to say the least)...

[Solaris]

However, can they legitimately post the entire facility, parking lots and all, with permanent signs?

Schools can legally post 06/07. It applies as statutes allow, not "everywhere".

[mr surveyor]

just curious about the wording/grammar ....

30.06 ..... "with an concealed handgun"

30.07 ..... "with a openly carried handgun"


jd

[srothstein]

just curious about the wording/grammar ....

30.06 ..... "with an concealed handgun"

30.07 ..... "with a openly carried handgun"


jd

Well, it is Austin ISD after all.

Seriously, that slight error makes the signs technically invalid. I would not suggest trying to carry there based on that though.

[G.A. Heath]

Someone needs to Photograph it for filing a complaint, submit the complaint to ISD. Next they need to wait the required amount of time then check to see if signs still posted, if they are then they need to submit complaint to AG's office.

[Solaris]

Someone needs to Photograph it for filing a complaint, submit the complaint to ISD. Next they need to wait the required amount of time then check to see if signs still posted, if they are then they need to submit complaint to AG's office.

School is a 46.03 place and SB273 does not apply. At least that is the way I read SB273.

[G.A. Heath]

Someone needs to Photograph it for filing a complaint, submit the complaint to ISD. Next they need to wait the required amount of time then check to see if signs still posted, if they are then they need to submit complaint to AG's office.

School is a 46.03 place and SB273 does not apply. At least that is the way I read SB273.

Check the definition of premises used by 46.03 (found in 46.035) The parking lots do not count as part of the 46.03 prohibition unless there is a school sponsored activity happening in them.

[Solaris]

Someone needs to Photograph it for filing a complaint, submit the complaint to ISD. Next they need to wait the required amount of time then check to see if signs still posted, if they are then they need to submit complaint to AG's office.

School is a 46.03 place and SB273 does not apply. At least that is the way I read SB273.

Check the definition of premises used by 46.03 (found in 46.035) The parking lots do not count as part of the 46.03 prohibition unless there is a school sponsored activity happening in them.

Hence why I wrote "It applies as statutes allow, not "everywhere".

[G.A. Heath]

Someone needs to Photograph it for filing a complaint, submit the complaint to ISD. Next they need to wait the required amount of time then check to see if signs still posted, if they are then they need to submit complaint to AG's office.

School is a 46.03 place and SB273 does not apply. At least that is the way I read SB273.

Check the definition of premises used by 46.03 (found in 46.035) The parking lots do not count as part of the 46.03 prohibition unless there is a school sponsored activity happening in them.

Hence why I wrote "It applies as statutes allow, not "everywhere".

SB273 does apply for a permanent sign as parking lots are not off limits due to the definition of premises, you indicated otherwise as quoted after your post that included as "statutes allow".

[Solaris]

SB273 does apply for a permanent sign as parking lots are not off limits due to the definition of premises, you indicated otherwise as quoted after your post that included as "statutes allow".

Again I agree parking lots are GTG.

Sec.A411.209.AWRONGFUL 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.

Since license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.03, it seems to me signs are legit and SB273 does not apply. It is only a 3 month old law so we shall see what the AG does. Based on is prior rulings (courts), I am not expecting any fines.

[G.A. Heath]

SB273 does apply for a permanent sign as parking lots are not off limits due to the definition of premises, you indicated otherwise as quoted after your post that included as "statutes allow".

Again I agree parking lots are GTG.

Sec.A411.209.AWRONGFUL 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.

Since license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.03, it seems to me signs are legit and SB273 does not apply. It is only a 3 month old law so we shall see what the AG does. Based on is prior rulings (courts), I am not expecting any fines.

1. The premises, as defined in 46.035, is off limits per 46.03.

2. The parking lot is excluded by the definition of premises as found in 46.035.

3. The ISD is posting the parking lot, which is not off limits. The can post the buildings but not the parking lot, sidewalks, ect.

4. The ISD can now be given notice per SB273 and then reported to the AG's office if not corrected.

I am unaware of any prior rulings RE SB273 and/or the definition of premesis as defined in 46.035. Please provide such.

[Solaris]

3. The ISD is posting the parking lot, which is not off limits. The can post the buildings but not the parking lot, sidewalks, ect.

Agreed 30.06(e) says parking lot is not off limits, but 30.06 law does not mandate where on property sign must go. Only that it must be "conspicuous and visible to the public". Sign meets that requirement, and it appears the 30.07 meets its requirements too. Sign is valid and if you carry in building, will get a free ride in cop car.

eta

I guess your point is they need to move sign from current location to building area. I am unaware of any case law that specifies EXACTLY where on property sign must be. We are now dealing with issues of feet/inches away from premises on location of sign. Please cite if you have it. Would be good to know exactly in feet/inches how close/far sign can be from premises demarcation.

[G.A. Heath]

The effect of posting it at the entrance to the parking lot would be to convey that the parking lot is off limits by providing notice at that point. This is based on the fact that with a valid posting you are not in violation of it until you go past it. Imagine a business with a foyer where the outside doors are kept clear of signage but the inside doors are posted with 30.06 a license holder would not be in violation going past the first set of doors that are not posted, as they have not received notice, but upon going past the second they would be in violation as they had received notice.