TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Where's everyone that ...

1. ...
I am going to indulge in the assumption that all of this was cynically and sarcastically intended, which you can disabuse me of at your leisure.

Otherwise, c'mon, man!

I'm going with sarcasm...

The one that caught my eye was the the Pasadena convention center letter. The McAllen convention center also has a gunshow (saxet) and the show has a posted 30.06/07 sign, not the convention center. If I'm understanding this correctly, are the signs posted by any organization in any city owned convention center invalid?

bear94 wrote:The one that caught my eye was the the Pasadena convention center letter. The McAllen convention center also has a gunshow (saxet) and the show has a posted 30.06/07 sign, not the convention center. If I'm understanding this correctly, are the signs posted by any organization in any city owned convention center invalid?

City owned property? Help them out, take the signs to the dumpster and toss them.

bear94 wrote:The one that caught my eye was the the Pasadena convention center letter. The McAllen convention center also has a gunshow (saxet) and the show has a posted 30.06/07 sign, not the convention center. If I'm understanding this correctly, are the signs posted by any organization in any city owned convention center invalid?

Yes. Looks like a complaint to city of McAllen is in order.

I just noticed the letters each have an "OAG Complaint Number". If memory serves, the lowest number is 2 (City of Tom Bean), and the highest is 30 (McLennan County Court House and Annex). I don't know if that imparts any useful information, but according to a recent news article, about 60 complaints have been sent to the AG.

If government buildings which house a court is such a big priority for some cities then perhaps legislator can make a deal. Government buildings with court houses can ban guns if they Emimanate the 30.06 sign from texas law completely. That would be well played!
Im not a lawyer and this is only an opinion. I dont follow this stuff like some of you!

casp625 wrote: Yes but the term amusement park does not apply to any sidewalk or walkways, per statute

True, but those sidewalks or walkways must be public. All the sidewalks and walkways "inside" the amusement zoo are not public.

C-dub wrote:

casp625 wrote: Yes but the term amusement park does not apply to any sidewalk or walkways, per statute

True, but those sidewalks or walkways must be public. All the sidewalks and walkways "inside" the amusement zoo are not public.

You sure about that?

(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

casp625 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

casp625 wrote: Yes but the term amusement park does not apply to any sidewalk or walkways, per statute

True, but those sidewalks or walkways must be public. All the sidewalks and walkways "inside" the amusement zoo are not public.

You sure about that?

(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

It's not spelled out, but I'm pretty sure that the intent of that is directed to public or private areas that are accessible to the public even when closed. The areas we are debating about here are inside the park and accessible only when the park is open.

I just wish the Legislature would amend this law to include any gun prohibited sign on state-city government owned property that currently applies.

They aren't 30.06/.07 signs but I was in Love Field airport the other day and it has gun buster signs at the door. So DAL airport could be fined by the AG if the sign was 30.06/.07 but they cannot be fined for a gun buster sign that read "Firearms are Prohibited on these Premises"?

Ya'll were discussing this back in 2010 viewtopic.php?t=30678 and the airport LEOs willingness to arrest even though LTC/CHL can legally carry into the non-secured area. See jimlongley's contribution to the discussion.

C-dub wrote:

casp625 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

casp625 wrote: Yes but the term amusement park does not apply to any sidewalk or walkways, per statute

True, but those sidewalks or walkways must be public. All the sidewalks and walkways "inside" the amusement zoo are not public.

You sure about that?

(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

It's not spelled out, but I'm pretty sure that the intent of that is directed to public or private areas that are accessible to the public even when closed. The areas we are debating about here are inside the park and accessible only when the park is open.

Intent vs plain meaning is how the zoo got itself the amusement park designation. And thus, plain meaning states amusement park does not apply to any public or private sidewalk or walkway. So even if 30.0X posted, 46.035 only applies to the buildings in the amusement park.

Simple solution: stay on the walkways and sidewalks and 46.035 doesn't apply in the zoo, erm, amusement park. Unless you can point out in the statute that states otherwise.

In the AG's opinion KP-0047, he says

"the responsible authority that would notify license holders of their inability to carry on respective premises must make the determination of which government courtrooms and offices are essential to the operation of the government court." The OAG acknowledges that decisions such as this are for the governmental entity in the first instance, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

[emphasis added]

He then basically says that those governments which banned carry in a mixed use building abused their discretion in doing so.

I got curious as to exactly how they abused their discretion, that is what did they include that the AG considers not essential to the functioning of the court(s).
The AG listed the following examples in letters to Brazos, Dallas, and McLennan counties:
- County Clerk
- County Attorney
- District Attorney
- County Tax Office
- County Constable
- Commissioners Court

I don't think this is all inclusive -- he lists a slightly different set of three in each letter, starting with "for example."

But I'd say if you have a courthouse that is entirely off limits to licensed carry and it has one of the six offices above, and they ignore your complaint, the AG would likely send them a letter too.

casp625 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

casp625 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

casp625 wrote: Yes but the term amusement park does not apply to any sidewalk or walkways, per statute

True, but those sidewalks or walkways must be public. All the sidewalks and walkways "inside" the amusement zoo are not public.

You sure about that?

(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

It's not spelled out, but I'm pretty sure that the intent of that is directed to public or private areas that are accessible to the public even when closed. The areas we are debating about here are inside the park and accessible only when the park is open.

Intent vs plain meaning is how the zoo got itself the amusement park designation. And thus, plain meaning states amusement park does not apply to any public or private sidewalk or walkway. So even if 30.0X posted, 46.035 only applies to the buildings in the amusement park.

Simple solution: stay on the walkways and sidewalks and 46.035 doesn't apply in the zoo, erm, amusement park. Unless you can point out in the statute that states otherwise.

That would be great if that were the case, but somehow I don't think it is.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... -why.html/

Dallas County Courts ruling VS Austin ruling . Austin claiming a loophole.

I'm surprised that Austin isn't claiming that their building is not an amusement park.