TexasCHLforum.com

Everyone contact your reps. We need some sort of language added to the effect of:

"No political subdivision may allow any third party, lessee, renter, group, contractor, or any other person or party to post any sign restricting carry by a license holder on the property."

One thing this letter does not say is "You are not a school and you are not an amusement park". I would conceal there (I always have) but would not OC. Don't forget... their sign is not compliant language anyhow. Conceal away!!!

If somebody breaks into the zoo and sets the animals free, it's not a crime if that somebody is associated with a private non-profit corporation.

Good to know. Good to know.

This is absolutely crazy. The public entity owns the property which means our tax dollars keep it up. The private entity leases from us but we still own the property. There needs to be legislation that bans any private entity that is leasing public property from posting or restricting the public from 30.06/30.07. This should also be in every lease that the private entity writes.

In all fairness to the AG, this and his preceding opinion specifically name "non profits" as the entity that doe not get fined. Nothing I've read seems to say the same for "for profits", gun shows, et al.

Dragonfighter wrote:In all fairness to the AG, this and his preceding opinion specifically name "non profits" as the entity that doe not get fined. Nothing I've read seems to say the same for "for profits", gun shows, et al.

Nothing in the AG opinion tells the city to take the signs down. Why not? The city owns the land. The city should be made to take them down. Oh, I see. The city didn't POST the signs. The city gets off the hook by saying they don't have any control over the posting of signs at the zoo and the signs stay up. I'll bet if the zoo posted a sign under their exclusive agreement that prohibited minorities (or even illegal aliens), the city would probably fall over themselves to get the signs pulled down. The AG focused on who could be fined and not if the signs were prohibited on city PROPERTY. All a lessee has to do now is to get an exclusive agreement with the government entity on posting signs and the lessee can post what they want and the gvt. entity gets off and signs stay up.

I doubt anything will get "fixed" in the 2017 session. I wish it would, but I'm not holding my breath. My Grandmother used to say, "Poop in one hand and wish in the other and see which one gets filled first." Words of wisdom.

I'm interested in reading the letter. I looked at the management agreement and no where did I see anything about an exclusive sign agreement.

You know, recently (due to the fining of government entities posting) the gun show at Harvey Hall in Tyler (owned by the city) stopped posting 30.06 signage at the event. Given this ruling letter, they can start posting the 30.06 signs again because the city can't be held accountable for the POSTAGE of the signs...

I've been thinking about this a little more lately and can't help wondering if the cities themselves hold any responsibility for what any third party does on their property. Can the third party do whatever they want and the cities are free and clear?

This is the same ruling for the Ft Worth gun show, that the show sponsor can post the venue, but the police there can't enforce it, so it's basically a bluff, so what happen when the CC get found out? Ticket? Arrested? Do the officers know it's a bluff? Enquiring minds want to know!

crazy2medic wrote:This is the same ruling for the Ft Worth gun show, that the show sponsor can post the venue, but the police there can't enforce it, so it's basically a bluff, so what happen when the CC get found out? Ticket? Arrested? Do the officers know it's a bluff? Enquiring minds want to know!

Likely they will follow the example of the various city owned stadiums/venues. They will decide whether they want to wand or pass through metal detectors and private security will physically prevent your entry with a concealed handgun. The police may assist if you resist being ejected, though it's not clear what you would be charged with. Presumably some sort of disorderly conduct or assault depending on how vigorously you object.

Not happy about this and this sort of thing opens a Pandora's Box of copycats. So, does this mean cities like Austin, Tyler, and others who have posted on city or county owned property can simply contract with a 3rd party vendor to "manage and maintain" said property and have that vendor post and be enforceable? We're on a mighty slippery slope here.

So, I guess the end result for some is the addition of a couple hundred dollars to the admission price of the zoo.

cowhow wrote:Not happy about this and this sort of thing opens a Pandora's Box of copycats. So, does this mean cities like Austin, Tyler, and others who have posted on city or county owned property can simply contract with a 3rd party vendor to "manage and maintain" said property and have that vendor post and be enforceable? We're on a mighty slippery slope here.

So, I guess the end result for some is the addition of a couple hundred dollars to the admission price of the zoo.

It's not enforceable but they won't get fined for posting it.

The letter is now posted on AG website. Direct link is: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... th_Zoo.pdf

ScottDLS wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:Likely they will follow the example of the various city owned stadiums/venues. They will decide whether they want to wand or pass through metal detectors and private security will physically prevent your entry with a concealed handgun. The police may assist if you resist being ejected, though it's not clear what you would be charged with. Presumably some sort of disorderly conduct or assault depending on how vigorously you object.

Probably trespass. The Zoo can tell you to leave, no reason needed. If you don't leave, it's a trespass.

The Zoo situation is the same a the Texas State Fair situation: Signs can be posted, but they are invalid.