TexasCHLforum.com

Wow... Fort Worth zoo combining 30.06 and 30.07 signs on city property. How else can they fail to comply with the law? They don't care, they just don't want icky guns near their dangerous animals... Or the zoo animals either.

It is almost like they know that they are doing it wrong, they are counting on the gun carrying public to not know in their efforts to be the most law abiding group in Texas.

AJSully421 wrote:Wow... Fort Worth zoo combining 30.06 and 30.07 signs on city property. How else can they fail to comply with the law? They don't care, they just don't want icky guns near their dangerous animals... Or the zoo animals either.

It is almost like they know that they are doing it wrong, they are counting on the gun carrying public to not know in their efforts to be the most law abiding group in Texas.

I look for them to begin a propaganda campaign. I would bet a dime to a dollar they'll be making statements to the public how they are legitimately exempted and the evil gun people are trying to turn the the zoo and war zone and dangerous place. I wouldn't doubt they'd even threaten closing.

Have they even stated what their basis is for claiming that being a child care center then makes them a GFZ? I don't see how claiming to be that makes them a school (assuming that's the angle they're trying to take).

Glockster wrote:Have they even stated what their basis is for claiming that being a child care center then makes them a GFZ? I don't see how claiming to be that makes them a school (assuming that's the angle they're trying to take).

I wonder if they also realize that the wording of the sign is invalid until January 1 anyway....

The Harrison county courthouse has a courtroom on the first floor. It also has the county tax assessor-collector. Both of these are behind a metal detector with an armed deputy. I haven't been by there since 9/1, but as of last week, they had a compliant 30.06 sign.
How close does a courtroom need to be for them to argue 'utilized by the court'? If the sign is still in place, would this be worth pursuing?

Tarrant County Southwest sub-courthouse, Tax Assessor has had signs on all doors but no metal detectors. But the Tax Assessor's office is accessible without going into the court. I remember too that a few years ago their office in Hurst was marked as being completely off limits since the building was a courthouse. But you don't go into the court to get to the Tax Assessor's office.

I too wonder if we shouldn't pursue all these county and municipalities that want to claim a whole building as a courthouse.

ScottDLS wrote:

Glockster wrote:Have they even stated what their basis is for claiming that being a child care center then makes them a GFZ? I don't see how claiming to be that makes them a school (assuming that's the angle they're trying to take).

I wonder if they also realize that the wording of the sign is invalid until January 1 anyway....

Pretty sure it doesn't matter what the wording is, a combined sign is a no go.

ScottDLS wrote: I wonder if they also realize that the wording of the sign is invalid until January 1 anyway....

Glockster wrote:Have they even stated what their basis is for claiming that being a child care center then makes them a GFZ? I don't see how claiming to be that makes them a school (assuming that's the angle they're trying to take).

Thy got Daycare license? ...
SO

Where do I drop off the kids every day for them to watch (Daycare?!) while I go to work, I hope they have a supply of diapers and employees to change the kids as needed...

Taypo wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Glockster wrote:Have they even stated what their basis is for claiming that being a child care center then makes them a GFZ? I don't see how claiming to be that makes them a school (assuming that's the angle they're trying to take).

I wonder if they also realize that the wording of the sign is invalid until January 1 anyway....

Pretty sure it doesn't matter what the wording is, a combined sign is a no go.

Really? On what basis in law?

ScottDLS wrote:

Taypo wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Glockster wrote:Have they even stated what their basis is for claiming that being a child care center then makes them a GFZ? I don't see how claiming to be that makes them a school (assuming that's the angle they're trying to take).

I wonder if they also realize that the wording of the sign is invalid until January 1 anyway....

Pretty sure it doesn't matter what the wording is, a combined sign is a no go.

Really? On what basis in law?

Tex. Penal Code §§30.06 and 30.07.

Chas.

TPC §30.06 as of 1/1/16 wrote:(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with [of license to carry] a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code ([concealed] handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

TPC §30.07 as of 1/1/16 wrote:(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Taypo wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Glockster wrote:Have they even stated what their basis is for claiming that being a child care center then makes them a GFZ? I don't see how claiming to be that makes them a school (assuming that's the angle they're trying to take).

I wonder if they also realize that the wording of the sign is invalid until January 1 anyway....

Pretty sure it doesn't matter what the wording is, a combined sign is a no go.

Really? On what basis in law?

Tex. Penal Code §§30.06 and 30.07.

Chas.

TPC §30.06 as of 1/1/16 wrote:(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with [of license to carry] a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code ([concealed] handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

TPC §30.07 as of 1/1/16 wrote:(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"

I thought Taypo was saying the signs were VALID regardless of the bad wording. They are NOT until 1/1/16. And they are unenforceable anyway due to Zoo being city owned. So I suggest there is no basis in law for enforceability until 1/1.

ScottDLS wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Taypo wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Glockster wrote:Have they even stated what their basis is for claiming that being a child care center then makes them a GFZ? I don't see how claiming to be that makes them a school (assuming that's the angle they're trying to take).

I wonder if they also realize that the wording of the sign is invalid until January 1 anyway....

Pretty sure it doesn't matter what the wording is, a combined sign is a no go.

Really? On what basis in law?

Tex. Penal Code §§30.06 and 30.07.

Chas.

TPC §30.06 as of 1/1/16 wrote:(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with [of license to carry] a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code ([concealed] handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

TPC §30.07 as of 1/1/16 wrote:(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"

I thought Taypo was saying the signs were VALID regardless of the bad wording. They are NOT until 1/1/16. And they are unenforceable anyway due to Zoo being city owned. So I suggest there is no basis in law for enforceability until 1/1.

There is NO basis for enforcement AFTER 1/1 because that sign is a combination of wording of both 30.06 and 30.07, rather than the specific language required for each. They can't just make stuff up to fit it on one sign to save space.

Taypo wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Taypo wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Glockster wrote:Have they even stated what their basis is for claiming that being a child care center then makes them a GFZ? I don't see how claiming to be that makes them a school (assuming that's the angle they're trying to take).

I wonder if they also realize that the wording of the sign is invalid until January 1 anyway....

Pretty sure it doesn't matter what the wording is, a combined sign is a no go.

Really? On what basis in law?

Tex. Penal Code §§30.06 and 30.07.

Chas.

TPC §30.06 as of 1/1/16 wrote:(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with [of license to carry] a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code ([concealed] handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

TPC §30.07 as of 1/1/16 wrote:(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"

I thought Taypo was saying the signs were VALID regardless of the bad wording. They are NOT until 1/1/16. And they are unenforceable anyway due to Zoo being city owned. So I suggest there is no basis in law for enforceability until 1/1.

There is NO basis for enforcement AFTER 1/1 because that sign is a combination of wording of both 30.06 and 30.07, rather than the specific language required for each. They can't just make stuff up to fit it on one sign to save space.

I agree. That sign doesn't meet the requirements of the law.

I have a question and please excuse me if this was answered elsewhere. Hospitals are statutorily off limits due to PC §46.035(b)(4), if they post a 30.06 sign per subsection (i).

Does this mean a county hospital can legally post a 30.06 sign even though it is owned by a government entity?

Jaguar wrote:I have a question and please excuse me if this was answered elsewhere. Hospitals are statutorily off limits due to PC §46.035(b)(4), if they post a 30.06 sign per subsection (i).

Does this mean a county hospital can legally post a 30.06 sign even though it is owned by a government entity?

Yes. Any place off limits in 46.03 or 46.035 can post 30.06.