TexasCHLforum.com

RHenriksen wrote:Alley Theatre website (at the completion of ticket purchase) that 'persuant to 30.06, no guns'. But HCAD shows the property as having 'X1 governmental exemption'. So... are they allowed to ban CHLs?

Probably yes.

I don't know what HCAD means by "'X1 governmental exemption." It could refer to title eleven (XI in roman numerals) of the Texas property tax code, which includes all tax-exempt property such as government facilities, schools, and charities.

This page says they own their building:
http://www.alleytheatre.org/Alley/A_Hom ... 1583175102" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But honestly, are they going to have pat-downs and metal detectors for the kind of high-brow stuff they put on? It's not exactly wrestling or a hip-hop performance.

At the risk of being pedantic—though I think this is at least as important a distinction as clip versus magazine—no person or entity is prohibited from or allowed to ban CHLs. Penal Code 30.06 simply states that "It is an exception to the application of this section..." No one has ever been convicted of a 30.06 violation, and there are volumes of case law to be made.

- Jim

No, they have zero security in place. I've been to performances there before, never noticed any signage, either.

seamusTX wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:Alley Theatre website (at the completion of ticket purchase) that 'persuant to 30.06, no guns'. But HCAD shows the property as having 'X1 governmental exemption'. So... are they allowed to ban CHLs?

Probably yes.

I don't know what HCAD means by "'X1 governmental exemption." It could refer to title eleven (XI in roman numerals) of the Texas property tax code, which includes all tax-exempt property such as government facilities, schools, and charities.

This page says they own their building:
http://www.alleytheatre.org/Alley/A_Hom ... 1583175102" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But honestly, are they going to have pat-downs and metal detectors for the kind of high-brow stuff they put on? It's not exactly wrestling or a hip-hop performance.

- Jim

BTW, while tax records are useful to a point, they are not a completely reliable guide to the status of a facility.

Some examples of government-owned property where weapons are prohibited are

• federal facilities
• post offices
• the ever-fearsome ACE land and water
• courts
• jails
• public schools

Some examples of private property where weapons are prohibited regardless of 30.06 posting are

• schools
• polling places
• bars
• parimutuel race tracks
• interscholastic or professional sporting events, regardless of location

- Jim

The Bayou Vista town hall/MUD/police/fire station building has a 30.06 sign. They hold elections there and city council meetings. I pretty much just ignore it at all other times.

The new COH permits building, on both front entry doors, only if you have to do business there is it like a jail, so why would they post 30:06

Great Wolf Lodge in Grapevine posts a 30.06 sign on the entrance. There is a water park inside the hotel. Is a water park considered an amusement park and should the entire hotel be impacted?

Welcome to the forum, Fly Boy.

Great Wolf Lodge is a private company and can post 30.06 signs if they want.

The definition of amusement park for CHL purposes is so specialized that only about three places meet it—Six Flags and Sea World.

BTW, Schlitterbahn is not posted. They are in New Braunfels and Galveston. I don't know where else, if anywhere.

- Jim

Bill wrote:The new COH permits building, on both front entry doors, only if you have to do business there is it like a jail, so why would they post 30:06

Yes, I was there this morning and surprised to see the 30.06 posting. No courtrooms that I'm aware of, no police substation or 'secure areas'... is this a legal sign?

The address is 1002 Washington Ave. It's a very recently opened facility, and its VERY nice. SO nice, in fact, that you can understand why Houston seems to be having such ongoing budget problems!

http://www.houstonpermittingcenter.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RHenriksen wrote:'... is this a legal sign?

At the risk of being a nerd, there is no such thing as an illegal sign*.

The sign is legally unenforceable.

The City of Houston has had a problem with CHLs on city property (which is the property of the citizens) since day 1. This is odd, because it continues across administrations and after numerous fights.

BTW, whoever made the sign doesn't know Spanish. Spanish does not have the circumflex accent (ô), and usually all-caps printing in Spanish does not use any accent marks.

*They could have a sign saying "No Chinese or cripples." It would not be enforceable, and probably they would be sued for it. But it wouldn't be illegal (that is, a crime).

- Jim

duly noted!

So... what process is recommended for having a legally unenforceable sign taken down?

seamusTX wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:'... is this a legal sign?

At the risk of being a nerd, there is no such thing as an illegal sign*.

The sign is legally unenforceable.

The City of Houston has had a problem with CHLs on city property (which is the property of the citizens) since day 1. This is odd, because it continues across administrations and after numerous fights.

BTW, whoever made the sign doesn't know Spanish. Spanish does not have the circumflex accent (ô), and usually all-caps printing in Spanish does not use any accent marks.

*They could have a sign saying "No Chinese or cripples." It would not be enforceable, and probably they would be sued for it. But it wouldn't be illegal (that is, a crime).

- Jim

RHenriksen wrote:So... what process is recommended for having a legally unenforceable sign taken down?

I don't know for sure, because I've never done it.

I'd start by writing to the city attorney and explaining the situation. Or if you live in Houston, talk to your city council rep. In the latter case expect to educate them about the issue.

Houston originally would not allow CHL holders to be armed in City Hall, which has metal detectors. They eventually relented; but they insist on putting the mark of Cain on CHL holders. They also took down the signs at Hobby but not IAH. I don't know who got that done.

- Jim

RHenriksen wrote:duly noted!

So... what process is recommended for having a legally unenforceable sign taken down?

One way that often works in most cities we've done it:

Writing to "just" the city attorney is a good start, and his overworked assistant will put it under the other work and some day it may or may not get passed on to the next city Atty.. (see Disclaimer below)

Sending to City Atty AND Mayor AND every council member and city secretary (to put on notice under most city charters) and to police chief and and city manager gets them talking among themselves about it ... THEN the CITY ATTY can justify charging the city for research billable hours .... and making recommendations, which they'll follow

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46764&p=572044&hili ... on#p572044" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41993&p=505784&hil ... on#p505784" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

it often works (several cities changed their no guns in parks ordinances,m removed signs etc) as you'll see here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=188&p=562291&hilit=removed#p562291" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



viewtopic.php?f=23&t=42833&p=516728&hil ... ry#p516724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Got word today that at the recommedation of the assistant City Manager and the Chief of Police the City Counsel "voted" to remove 30.06 signs at city hall and allow CHL's to attend City Counsel meetings. The assistant City Manager told the counsel that if a shooter started shooting counsel members during a meeting that he would want all the CHL guns he could get into the chambers. The Police Chief agreed. Apparently so did the counsel members.

(Disclaimer: as a legal assistant for over 25 years. I'd never put anything on the bottom of the stack which was less of a priority .... but I knew a guy once ... oh baloney, everyone prioritizes, and squeaky wheels get greased and when the city council and Mayor and city Manager are all asking the city atty about it ...and the city Atty keeps asking the Legal Assistant about it, it goes to the top of the stack fast so you can get back to Solitaire .... not that I had Solitaire on my computer ... just sayin')

(Quit laughing Charles)

The Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery is posted as gun restricted although I cannot remember the verbage. I go there several times a year and feel very uncomfortable driving all there way there and back without my sidekick. My guess is that there is a history of CHL holders tearing up the place whilst honoring the resting place of so many American Heros. That can be the only reason because I have never seen a single droopy pants thug there.

I will honor the rule because I do not wish to be resticted from visiting, but I don't like it.

Timbo

ps: If you ever get a chance to visit a Nation Cemetery around sunset..wait for the playing of Taps. It will take your breath away hearing it while being surrounded by thousands of crosses.

RHenriksen wrote: So... what process is recommended for having a legally unenforceable sign taken down?

There is no enforcement provision in the law. We talked about this in another thread last week. TABC monitors 51% signage and corrects locations that are improperly posted. there is no corresponding agency nor procedure to correct government entities from improperly posting 30.06 signs on public properties. Here in Tarrant County, the Fort Worth Zoo and the Will Rogers barn complex are posted. In addition, gun shows in the Will Rogers Exhibit Hall are always posted.
I wrote Alice Tripp of TSRA about this recently, suggesting that enforcement be assigned by the next legislature to DPS or Texas Rangers. I specifically mentioned the Fort Worth Zoo. She replied immediately that my email was timely as they were working on that very thing currently. She asked me to get pics of the offending sign, which I will do Sunday AM.

Timbo55 wrote:The Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery is posted as gun restricted ...

It's federal property, operated by the VA.

It could be argued that open land like that cannot be restricted. The statute that prohibits carrying weapons in federal facilities applies only to buildings (I don't feel like looking it up, but it has been discussed many times here).

Also, how often do mourners at cemeteries get hassled by police of any type?

- Jim