Houston Hobby Center Posting

[howdy]

The Hobby Center for the Performing Arts is a privately owned venue located on City land. It is posted both 30.06 and 30.07. I sent the city a letter informing them of the violation of the law and received this email sign by the city attorney:

Mr. Howdy:

"Your email regarding “30.06” and “30.07” signs posted at the Hobby Center for the Performing Arts has been forwarded to the City of Houston (the “City”) Legal Department for response. You allege that the Hobby Center for the Performing Arts is improperly prohibiting license holders from possessing a handgun on City-owned property.

A violation only occurs under Texas Government Code section 411.209 if a political subdivision or state agency provides notice that a license holder is prohibited from entering or remaining on premises owned or leased by the governmental entity. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.209. The Texas Attorney General has stated that section 411.209 does not apply to a city or private entity, when that city leases property to a private entity that provides notice that a license holder carrying a handgun is prohibited from entry. See Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. KP-108 (2016).

The Hobby Center for the Performing Arts is located on real property owned by the City. However, the City leased the property to a private entity, the Hobby Center Foundation, which exercises exclusive control over the space. The City did not post the alleged signs at issue, nor did the City direct placement or approve placement of the signs. The Hobby Center Foundation posted the signs in its discretion as the private entity in control of the use and operation of the premises.

Therefore, the City and the Hobby Center Foundation have not violated Texas Government Code section 411.209. Thank you for contacting the City on this matter."

This is what Texas code 411.209 says:
"(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.
(b) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state that violates Subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of:
(1) not less than $1,000 and not more than $1,500 for the first violation;  and
(2) not less than $10,000 and not more than $10,500 for the second or a subsequent violation.
(c) Each day of a continuing violation of Subsection (a) constitutes a separate violation.
(d) A citizen of this state or a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under this subchapter may file a complaint with the attorney general that a state agency or political subdivision is in violation of Subsection (a) if the citizen or person provides the agency or subdivision a written notice that describes the violation and specific location of the sign found to be in violation and the agency or subdivision does not cure the violation before the end of the third business day after the date of receiving the written notice.  A complaint filed under this subsection must include evidence of the violation and a copy of the written notice....."
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/government- ... VmRXc.dpuf

What do ya'll think?

[ScottDLS]

The Hobby Center for the Performing Arts is a privately owned venue located on City land. It is posted both 30.06 and 30.07. I sent the city a letter informing them of the violation of the law and received this email sign by the city attorney:

Mr. Howdy:

"Your email regarding “30.06” and “30.07” signs posted at the Hobby Center for the Performing Arts has been forwarded to the City of Houston (the “City”) Legal Department for response. You allege that the Hobby Center for the Performing Arts is improperly prohibiting license holders from possessing a handgun on City-owned property.

A violation only occurs under Texas Government Code section 411.209 if a political subdivision or state agency provides notice that a license holder is prohibited from entering or remaining on premises owned or leased by the governmental entity. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.209. The Texas Attorney General has stated that section 411.209 does not apply to a city or private entity, when that city leases property to a private entity that provides notice that a license holder carrying a handgun is prohibited from entry. See Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. KP-108 (2016).

The Hobby Center for the Performing Arts is located on real property owned by the City. However, the City leased the property to a private entity, the Hobby Center Foundation, which exercises exclusive control over the space. The City did not post the alleged signs at issue, nor did the City direct placement or approve placement of the signs. The Hobby Center Foundation posted the signs in its discretion as the private entity in control of the use and operation of the premises.

Therefore, the City and the Hobby Center Foundation have not violated Texas Government Code section 411.209. Thank you for contacting the City on this matter."

What do ya'll think?

Similar to a message I got from the Arlington City Attorney in January. "Hey we're not putting them up, so we can't be fined". They can't have you arrested for violating them either, but if they physically prevent your entry, there will be nothing you can do about it. This is likely the way all these are going to go based on the AG recent opinion about non-profit renting public property. So Houston Zoo, Ft. Worth Zoo, who knows, maybe even the State Fair will be able to keep you out, but not criminally punish you if you sneak in. Also it will probably have to be non-LEO that forces you out. It will be interesting to see how aggressively one can resist physical enforcement of CIVIL trespass on public property.

[AJSully421]

The Hobby Center for the Performing Arts is a privately owned venue located on City land. It is posted both 30.06 and 30.07. I sent the city a letter informing them of the violation of the law and received this email sign by the city attorney:

Mr. Howdy:

"Your email regarding “30.06” and “30.07” signs posted at the Hobby Center for the Performing Arts has been forwarded to the City of Houston (the “City”) Legal Department for response. You allege that the Hobby Center for the Performing Arts is improperly prohibiting license holders from possessing a handgun on City-owned property.

A violation only occurs under Texas Government Code section 411.209 if a political subdivision or state agency provides notice that a license holder is prohibited from entering or remaining on premises owned or leased by the governmental entity. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.209. The Texas Attorney General has stated that section 411.209 does not apply to a city or private entity, when that city leases property to a private entity that provides notice that a license holder carrying a handgun is prohibited from entry. See Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. KP-108 (2016).

The Hobby Center for the Performing Arts is located on real property owned by the City. However, the City leased the property to a private entity, the Hobby Center Foundation, which exercises exclusive control over the space. The City did not post the alleged signs at issue, nor did the City direct placement or approve placement of the signs. The Hobby Center Foundation posted the signs in its discretion as the private entity in control of the use and operation of the premises.

Therefore, the City and the Hobby Center Foundation have not violated Texas Government Code section 411.209. Thank you for contacting the City on this matter."

What do ya'll think?

Similar to a message I got from the Arlington City Attorney in January. "Hey we're not putting them up, so we can't be fined". They can't have you arrested for violating them either, but if they physically prevent your entry, there will be nothing you can do about it. This is likely the way all these are going to go based on the AG recent opinion about non-profit renting public property. So Houston Zoo, Ft. Worth Zoo, who knows, maybe even the State Fair will be able to keep you out, but not criminally punish you if you sneak in. Also it will probably have to be non-LEO that forces you out. It will be interesting to see how aggressively one can resist physical enforcement of CIVIL trespass on public property.

This could get ugly... And I like ugly!

[Vol Texan]

The A.G. has already recently ruled on a very similar case, and come down on the side of:

- LTC holders can ignore the signage, it is not enforceable
- The governmental entity that owns the property cannot be fined, as they are not the ones that put the signage up


It's going to take a court case or legislative action to make the signs physically come down (or a letter from the A.G., maybe). I've filed a complaint with the A.G. recently about the Hobby Center, and they informed me they already have 2 other open complaints on the Hobby Center.

This is going to have to be added to the 2017 legislative priorities. It's simply a way to skirt around the law and continue infringing on our rights.

[TexasTornado]

The A.G. has already recently ruled on a very similar case, and come down on the side of:

- LTC holders can ignore the signage, it is not enforceable
- The governmental entity that owns the property cannot be fined, as they are not the ones that put the signage up


It's going to take a court case or legislative action to make the signs physically come down (or a letter from the A.G., maybe). I've filed a complaint with the A.G. recently about the Hobby Center, and they informed me they already have 2 other open complaints on the Hobby Center.

This is going to have to be added to the 2017 legislative priorities. It's simply a way to skirt around the law and continue infringing on our rights.

This.

[Glockster]

The A.G. has already recently ruled on a very similar case, and come down on the side of:

- LTC holders can ignore the signage, it is not enforceable
- The governmental entity that owns the property cannot be fined, as they are not the ones that put the signage up


It's going to take a court case or legislative action to make the signs physically come down (or a letter from the A.G., maybe). I've filed a complaint with the A.G. recently about the Hobby Center, and they informed me they already have 2 other open complaints on the Hobby Center.

This is going to have to be added to the 2017 legislative priorities. It's simply a way to skirt around the law and continue infringing on our rights.

Absolutely.

[C-dub]

I must be missing something here. If someone else, with my permission, is driving my car and is caught running a red light with one of those red light cameras, they send me, the registered owner of the car, the bill.

The city should tell whoever is leasing the property that they cannot post any signs or otherwise prohibit licensed people from carrying in their building or anywhere on city property. We shouldn't need anything fixed legislatively. We need a judge to tell them to shut up and get out their wallet or stop breaking the law. And if the city wants to turn around and sue whoever is leasing their property to recover those costs, more power to them. Go for it.

[Abraham]

What's their point in wanting to keep out the most law abiding/gun toting citizens?

Aren't they aware that criminals/and most recently 'terrorists' love soft targets?

I don't get it.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks!

[locke_n_load]

Glad this opinion came out now and cities are doing this now, as opposed to later next year. We can take care of it in the next session. Keeps open for every private company on public property to post. We need to hit this hard next session, and hold those responsible for their lawlessness, instead of the taxpayers.

ETA: this bill should go into effect as soon as it has passed, not in September of that year. This lawlessness has gone on long enough, and the perpetrators shouldn't get to postpone making things right after all this.

[AJSully421]

What's their point in wanting to keep out the most law abiding/gun toting citizens?

Aren't they aware that criminals/and most recently 'terrorists' love soft targets?

I don't get it.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks!

Irrational fear of firearms along with a refusal to see logic and inability to reason.

[C-dub]

What's their point in wanting to keep out the most law abiding/gun toting citizens?

Aren't they aware that criminals/and most recently 'terrorists' love soft targets?

I don't get it.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks!

Irrational fear of firearms along with a refusal to see logic and inability to reason.

That's the long version. Here's the short version.

Liberals