The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
Can I come over?fickman wrote:I have a perfect vantage point from the park < 100 yards from my house. . . and, of course, I get plenty of chances to see the planes as they buzz my house during practice for a week leading up to the show.
If they're allowing the general public unescorted access, that implies the airshow grounds are not AOA or SIDA, unless the airport is intentionally violating FAR Part 107 by allowing unescorted access to untrained personnel who haven't been subject to background checks.donkey wrote:Just because their is a fence at an airport doesn't mean the area on the other side is automatically a "secure area". You would need to talk to Alliance an find out exactly what portions of the airport have been designated as AOAs or SIDAs. Federal laws apply in these areas and weapons are not allowed.
Maybe they don't quote federal law because they know federal law doesn't prohibit firearms at the airshow.donkey wrote:Texas says the only "secured area" is in the terminal building. They should be posting signs that cite federal law.
Well then, it certainly sounds like they are as wrong as I am. Okay. Maybe more, but ...donkey wrote:Just because their is a fence at an airport doesn't mean the area on the other side is automatically a "secure area". You would need to talk to Alliance an find out exactly what portions of the airport have been designated as AOAs or SIDAs. Federal laws apply in these areas and weapons are not allowed. The 30.06 signs are not valid as the state of Texas says the only "secured area" is in the terminal building. They should be posting signs that cite federal law.C-dub wrote:Exactly!wheelgun1958 wrote:The area past the fence onto the ramp and flight line are under the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration. Akin to the USPS, not being bound by TX law. I wouldn't carry past the fence. Just sayin'.
All of Love Field and DFW are owned by Dallas or a group of cities. Most of our large airports are city owned. How many of you folks saying that 30.06 doesn't matter because it is property owned by the city want to try and see how far into the secure area you can get with your gun? This airshow is too much of a gray area for me. I would not risk it. I don't have the money to fight it and don't want to risk losing big time if I'm wrong.
They don't need to post 30.06 signs, but they are as a reminder. Maybe they are unenforceable. IDK
Are there any other statutorily off limits places that are okay when there is a certain type of event going on?
What is "FAR Part 107"? I work in a Part 145 Repair Station and have a link to electronic code of federal regulation, CFR 14 Part 107 is not used, it is marked as "reserved".tbrown wrote:If they're allowing the general public unescorted access, that implies the airshow grounds are not AOA or SIDA, unless the airport is intentionally violating FAR Part 107 by allowing unescorted access to untrained personnel who haven't been subject to background checks.donkey wrote:Just because their is a fence at an airport doesn't mean the area on the other side is automatically a "secure area". You would need to talk to Alliance an find out exactly what portions of the airport have been designated as AOAs or SIDAs. Federal laws apply in these areas and weapons are not allowed.
Maybe they don't quote federal law because they know federal law doesn't prohibit firearms at the airshow.donkey wrote:Texas says the only "secured area" is in the terminal building. They should be posting signs that cite federal law.
The Annoyed Man wrote:Can I come over?fickman wrote:I have a perfect vantage point from the park < 100 yards from my house. . . and, of course, I get plenty of chances to see the planes as they buzz my house during practice for a week leading up to the show.
That's an interesting and not too unreasonable opinion. However, I wonder if they would still arrest someone for carrying past such a sign knowing that it was posted somewhere that it shouldn't be? Based on their opinion that it makes CHLs look bad to the public I'm guessing that they would. Otherwise, how would it make a CHL look bad if no one knew about it?Rrash wrote:For what its worth - this is kind of an FYI, more just because I am dejected at the way the Rangers season has ended up - I mentioned the non-compliant sign to two personal friends of mine who are both LEO. I asked their opinion. Both told me do not carry, even if the sign is unenforceable. They said the best way to fight the signs is through legislature and writing the city of Fort Worth. In their opinion, every person that gets caught simply makes CHL's look bad to the general public.
Maybe a little bit but not even 1% as bad as some LEO would makes his or her profession look by breaking the law and arresting a US citizen for exercising a basic human right.Rrash wrote:In their opinion, every person that gets caught simply makes CHL's look bad to the general public.
Okay then, learn something new every day.Keith B wrote:http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/F ... t_107.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Jaguar wrote:What is "FAR Part 107"? I work in a Part 145 Repair Station and have a link to electronic code of federal regulation, CFR 14 Part 107 is not used, it is marked as "reserved".
I don't know what FAR regulates public access, I don't have to deal with that area and I'm not the type that memorizes regulations for fun, I do know some of those types though.
