BOMA Letter of 1995

[Charles L. Cotton]

The Building Owners & Management Association (BOMA) held a meeting in Houston in the summer of 1995. I spoke at that conference along with another attorney. The topic was whether or not building owners and managers should post their property to prevent concealed-carry by CHLs when their licenses would become effective on Jan. 1, 1996. The other attorney said "yes," while I obviously said "no." After the conference, BOMA issued a letter advising its members not to post no-gun signs and it stated reasons I had presented during my segment. This resulted in large office buildings and complexes not posting "no-guns" signs. Unfortunately, small businesses (Mom & Pop shops) are not BOMA members.

I have that letter in both hardcopy and electronic formm but I cannot find either. I need it badly! I've searched the Internet and cannot find it. Does anyone happen to have a copy?

Thanks,
Chas.

[joe817]

Well, I thought I was homing in on the area of BOMA-Houston's website, but you have to be a BOMA member to access those records.

Know anybody who is a BOMA member? Perhaps they can access that area:

http://www.houstonboma.org/member-resource-center.html

[Vol Texan]

The Building Owners & Management Association (BOMA) held a meeting in Houston in the summer of 1995. I spoke at that conference along with another attorney. The topic was whether or not building owners and managers should post their property to prevent concealed-carry by CHLs when their licenses would become effective on Jan. 1, 1996. The other attorney said "yes," while I obviously said "no." After the conference, BOMA issued a letter advising its members not to post no-gun signs and it stated reasons I had presented during my segment. This resulted in large office buildings and complexes not posting "no-guns" signs. Unfortunately, small businesses (Mom & Pop shops) are not BOMA members.

I have that letter in both hardcopy and electronic formm but I cannot find either. I need it badly! I've searched the Internet and cannot find it. Does anyone happen to have a copy?

Thanks,
Chas.

Charles,

Is this the content of the letter?

I found it here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/t ... XZ2um1d8EJ

The BOMA Letter
<>
September 19, 1995

Should You Ban Concealed Handguns?

By Larry Niemann, Texas BOMA Legal Counsel

In the 1995 Texas legislature, a comprehensive bill was enacted into law that allows qualified Texas citizens to carry concealed handguns. Many questions have arisen from property owners regarding whether or not they should ban concealed handguns on the premises. The following is information that might prove helpful to you in making that decision.

The kind of person eligible for licensure. Not every Tom, Dick and Harry off the street is going to be eligible to obtain a license for a concealed handgun. The profile of the potential licensee is that of a law-abiding citizen. The eligibility requirements are as follows:

(1) over 21 years of age,
(2) not currently on drugs,
(3) no treatment for drugs in the previous 5 years,
(4) no felony conviction ever,
(5) no misdemeanor convictions (of certain kinds) for the last 5
years,
(6) sound mind,
(7) not delinquent in child support,
(8) not delinquent in any taxes due,
(9) not in default on any loan from the state,
(10) not subject to any restraining order,
(11) resident of Texas,
(12) photographed and fingerprinted,
(13) address changes must be communicated immediately to the DPS,
and
(14) satisfactory completion of a state-approved training program.

Even though he new law authorizes licensees to carry concealed handguns, the statute grants employers and businessmen the right to prohibit concealed handguns on their premises by posting signs. Indeed, certain kinds of employers and businesses must post signs prohibiting concealed handguns. Those include
(i) businesses deriving more than 51% of their revenues from alcohol,
(ii) hospitals, and
(iii) nursing homes.

Although it is not necessary to post signs banning concealed guns in the following places, the new law makes it illegal to carry concealed handguns in schools, sporting events, amusement parks,
and churches.

The statute does not make it unlawful for a person who owns a handgun to carry it back and forth to his or her vehicle for purposes of repair, purchase, sale, hunting, or moving their residence. Of course, to avoid violation of other criminal laws, such transportation of a handgun must be done in a non-threatening manner.

Whether to ban concealed handguns. The decision to ban concealed handguns on the premises of an office building, retail shopping center, or other building is discretionary for the property owner (except in the areas where the statute prohibits concealed handguns). That means that on office building owner, for example, can post signs prohibiting concealed handguns in the office building.

Factors to consider in deciding whether to ban concealed handguns. If you do ban concealed handguns, there will possibly be fewer concealed handguns brought into your building. On the other hand, those who lawfully have concealed handguns have a statutory profile of being a law-abiding citizen. See the requirements for licensure above.

Banning concealed handguns will probably be difficult to enforce. People driving into a parking lot or parking garage will need to have a notice of the ban at the parking entrance; otherwise, they will not know about the ban until they have walked a long way to the building entrance. Also, enforcement of any ban would be complicated by the fact that some federal and state law enforcement officers will still have the right to bring their concealed handguns on the premises, despite your signs.

To be effective, a ban would have to involve a posting of signs at all vehicular entrances to parking lots, parking garages, and all pedestrian entrances into the building - on the outside of the building.

If you do ban concealed handguns, there is the potential for being liable for not taking prompt action to do something about a concealed handgun that you know has been brought on the premises in violation of posted signs. Plaintiff attorneys might argue that failure to call the police or failure to order the person out of the building was negligence. The posted ban signs would therefore put an owner in an awkward position whenever concealed handguns are observed by a building employee or reported to management by any tenant, guest or customer.

On the flip-side, there is no liability on the building owner for not banning concealed handguns.

At least one law enforcement official, the District Attorney in San Antonio, has requested the office building industry to not ban concealed handguns. It is that DA's opinion that such a ban would end up forcing many of the permittees to remove their concealed handguns from their person and hide them in their vehicles while they are inside your building. Other not-so-law-abiding citizens might observe such removal and attempted hiding of the handgun; and that may result in more vehicle break-ins and thefts of handguns, thus compounding law enforcement problems.

An informal check of a few other states having similar concealed handgun laws revealed that, as a general rule, office building owners in those other states are not posting signs to ban concealed handguns.

On balance, it would seem that it is easier, cheaper, safer and more aesthetic to not ban concealed handguns in office buildings and it would appear that there is less potential for liability of the property owner. That decision, however, is entirely up to each property owner.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As I recall from 20 years ago, that seems to be the letter. I don't remember the listing of CHL eligibility and application requirement, but again, it's been two decades. I know I have the hardcopy letter, but I'm afraid it's in off-site storage and that's a major problem!

Thanks,
Chas.

The Building Owners & Management Association (BOMA) held a meeting in Houston in the summer of 1995. I spoke at that conference along with another attorney. The topic was whether or not building owners and managers should post their property to prevent concealed-carry by CHLs when their licenses would become effective on Jan. 1, 1996. The other attorney said "yes," while I obviously said "no." After the conference, BOMA issued a letter advising its members not to post no-gun signs and it stated reasons I had presented during my segment. This resulted in large office buildings and complexes not posting "no-guns" signs. Unfortunately, small businesses (Mom & Pop shops) are not BOMA members.

I have that letter in both hardcopy and electronic formm but I cannot find either. I need it badly! I've searched the Internet and cannot find it. Does anyone happen to have a copy?

Thanks,
Chas.

Charles,

Is this the content of the letter?

I found it here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/t ... XZ2um1d8EJ

The BOMA Letter
<>
September 19, 1995

Should You Ban Concealed Handguns?

By Larry Niemann, Texas BOMA Legal Counsel

In the 1995 Texas legislature, a comprehensive bill was enacted into law that allows qualified Texas citizens to carry concealed handguns. Many questions have arisen from property owners regarding whether or not they should ban concealed handguns on the premises. The following is information that might prove helpful to you in making that decision.

The kind of person eligible for licensure. Not every Tom, Dick and Harry off the street is going to be eligible to obtain a license for a concealed handgun. The profile of the potential licensee is that of a law-abiding citizen. The eligibility requirements are as follows:

(1) over 21 years of age,
(2) not currently on drugs,
(3) no treatment for drugs in the previous 5 years,
(4) no felony conviction ever,
(5) no misdemeanor convictions (of certain kinds) for the last 5
years,
(6) sound mind,
(7) not delinquent in child support,
(8) not delinquent in any taxes due,
(9) not in default on any loan from the state,
(10) not subject to any restraining order,
(11) resident of Texas,
(12) photographed and fingerprinted,
(13) address changes must be communicated immediately to the DPS,
and
(14) satisfactory completion of a state-approved training program.

Even though he new law authorizes licensees to carry concealed handguns, the statute grants employers and businessmen the right to prohibit concealed handguns on their premises by posting signs. Indeed, certain kinds of employers and businesses must post signs prohibiting concealed handguns. Those include
(i) businesses deriving more than 51% of their revenues from alcohol,
(ii) hospitals, and
(iii) nursing homes.

Although it is not necessary to post signs banning concealed guns in the following places, the new law makes it illegal to carry concealed handguns in schools, sporting events, amusement parks,
and churches.

The statute does not make it unlawful for a person who owns a handgun to carry it back and forth to his or her vehicle for purposes of repair, purchase, sale, hunting, or moving their residence. Of course, to avoid violation of other criminal laws, such transportation of a handgun must be done in a non-threatening manner.

Whether to ban concealed handguns. The decision to ban concealed handguns on the premises of an office building, retail shopping center, or other building is discretionary for the property owner (except in the areas where the statute prohibits concealed handguns). That means that on office building owner, for example, can post signs prohibiting concealed handguns in the office building.

Factors to consider in deciding whether to ban concealed handguns. If you do ban concealed handguns, there will possibly be fewer concealed handguns brought into your building. On the other hand, those who lawfully have concealed handguns have a statutory profile of being a law-abiding citizen. See the requirements for licensure above.

Banning concealed handguns will probably be difficult to enforce. People driving into a parking lot or parking garage will need to have a notice of the ban at the parking entrance; otherwise, they will not know about the ban until they have walked a long way to the building entrance. Also, enforcement of any ban would be complicated by the fact that some federal and state law enforcement officers will still have the right to bring their concealed handguns on the premises, despite your signs.

To be effective, a ban would have to involve a posting of signs at all vehicular entrances to parking lots, parking garages, and all pedestrian entrances into the building - on the outside of the building.

If you do ban concealed handguns, there is the potential for being liable for not taking prompt action to do something about a concealed handgun that you know has been brought on the premises in violation of posted signs. Plaintiff attorneys might argue that failure to call the police or failure to order the person out of the building was negligence. The posted ban signs would therefore put an owner in an awkward position whenever concealed handguns are observed by a building employee or reported to management by any tenant, guest or customer.

On the flip-side, there is no liability on the building owner for not banning concealed handguns.

At least one law enforcement official, the District Attorney in San Antonio, has requested the office building industry to not ban concealed handguns. It is that DA's opinion that such a ban would end up forcing many of the permittees to remove their concealed handguns from their person and hide them in their vehicles while they are inside your building. Other not-so-law-abiding citizens might observe such removal and attempted hiding of the handgun; and that may result in more vehicle break-ins and thefts of handguns, thus compounding law enforcement problems.

An informal check of a few other states having similar concealed handgun laws revealed that, as a general rule, office building owners in those other states are not posting signs to ban concealed handguns.

On balance, it would seem that it is easier, cheaper, safer and more aesthetic to not ban concealed handguns in office buildings and it would appear that there is less potential for liability of the property owner. That decision, however, is entirely up to each property owner.

[Middle Age Russ]

It is interesting that you bring this up... The building I work in suddenly put up compliant signage (30.06 as well as 30.07) within the last few weeks. This is one of the many buildings managed by one of the well-know property management companies in the area, so I would imagine that a large number of office workers are seeing signage now that wasn't there a short while back.

[TrueFlog]

Perhaps you could persuade the Greater Houston Retailers Association (GHRA) to share that letter with their members. That might help counteract what we're reading about in another thread - http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=82511

[Charles L. Cotton]

I really need that letter, so I'm going to dig through off-site storage as soon as I get time.

Thanks folks,
Chas.