TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

It's not really a loophole because §30.07 was/is not in existence so SB273 couldn't address it. SB273 will not apply to §30.07 signs.

Chas.

But any 30.07 sign would still be unenforceable correct? If they ask you to leave, and all the law says mentions 30.06 notice/communication, could an employee of the state tell and open carrier to leave and you would have to?

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

It's not really a loophole because §30.07 was/is not in existence so SB273 couldn't address it. SB273 will not apply to §30.07 signs.

Chas.

But any 30.07 sign would still be unenforceable correct? If they ask you to leave, and all the law says mentions 30.06 notice/communication, could an employee of the state tell and open carrier to leave and you would have to?

Correct, 30.07 signs, as well as other notice under TPC §30.07, on governmental property not already off-limits to carrying a handgun or openly carrying a handgun would be unenforceable.

Chas.

I have the Houston Museum of Natural Science in my crosshairs. I love the place but hate the signs. I'd be happy to do the footwork on this one.

Will there be an advantage or disadvantage to having the same place reported by multiple people?

TexasCajun wrote:Will there be an advantage or disadvantage to having the same place reported by multiple people?

Yes. SB273 allows but does not require the AG to file suit and it does not create a private cause of action if the AG does not sue. The Bill does require the AG to investigate all complaints, so multiple complaints about the same agency would be a great incentive for the AG to file suit and stop incoming complaints.

Chas.

I guess the old saying "the squeaking wheel gets the oil" holds true in this case.

joe817 wrote:I guess the old saying "the squeaking wheel gets the oil" holds true in this case.

Absolutely! I plan on doing a lot of squeaking starting in just under a month and I need a lot of eyes to help in this effort. I have a favorite target in mind and I'm itching to file the complaint with the AG's office.

Chas.

There are a few in the Deer Park / Pasadena area that I've got my eye on!

TexasCajun wrote:There are a few in the Deer Park / Pasadena area that I've got my eye on!

I'll be busy in Pasadena!

esxmarkc wrote:I have the Houston Museum of Natural Science in my crosshairs. I love the place but hate the signs. I'd be happy to do the footwork on this one.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

joe817 wrote:I guess the old saying "the squeaking wheel gets the oil" holds true in this case.

Absolutely! I plan on doing a lot of squeaking starting in just under a month and I need a lot of eyes to help in this effort. I have a favorite target in mind and I'm itching to file the complaint with the AG's office.

Chas.

Looks like the Fort Worth zoo is covered. Anything else out there that you need help with?

I'm planning on taking on the Fort Worth gun show at Will Rogers. The city owns the place. Besides... if I walk in there with my pistol in a carry case, am I not illegally concealing a handgun past a 30.06 sign? Texas law does not make any distinction between loaded and unloaded firearms. Nor does it say that it is ok if it is zip tied or otherwise disabled. The whole thing is BULL!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

joe817 wrote:I guess the old saying "the squeaking wheel gets the oil" holds true in this case.

Absolutely! I plan on doing a lot of squeaking starting in just under a month and I need a lot of eyes to help in this effort. I have a favorite target in mind and I'm itching to file the complaint with the AG's office.

Chas.

Would that favorite target happen to be the Fort Worth zoo?

jamminbutter wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

joe817 wrote:I guess the old saying "the squeaking wheel gets the oil" holds true in this case.

Absolutely! I plan on doing a lot of squeaking starting in just under a month and I need a lot of eyes to help in this effort. I have a favorite target in mind and I'm itching to file the complaint with the AG's office.

Chas.

Would that favorite target happen to be the Fort Worth zoo?

Why yes it is!

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jamminbutter wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

joe817 wrote:I guess the old saying "the squeaking wheel gets the oil" holds true in this case.

Absolutely! I plan on doing a lot of squeaking starting in just under a month and I need a lot of eyes to help in this effort. I have a favorite target in mind and I'm itching to file the complaint with the AG's office.

Chas.

Would that favorite target happen to be the Fort Worth zoo?

Why yes it is!

Chas.

I will gladly stay up until Midnight 9/1 just to take the picture (if it is still up that is). :)

I have seen on this forum people determine that certain properties belong to this city or the state or this private owner.

How can that be determined? County records? I'm assuming before one would file a complaint for invalid signs we would want to at least make a good faith effort to determine the building/property owner?