Hobby Center?

[frreed]

Is the Hobby Center posted? Going there in a week or so. Would like to carry in downtown Houston, and definitely don't want to have to disarm and leave the pistol in the car.

[WEC]

There was a discussion about it here:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=14530" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[howdy]

I believe the Hobby Center IS legally posted. There is a parking garage right behind the center. You can leave your gun in the car, then retrieve it before you go walking around downtown. I think alot of you are missing the point on "is it a legal sign". Is there any doubt in your mind as to the intent of the sign at the Hobby Center? If you keep it concealed, then there really is no problem. I could just hear a Judge laughing when told that the sign at the Hobby Center in not on a "contrasting" surface. What would the court cost, lawyer fees, etc. be. On top of that, a conviction is a class A misdemeanor and you WILL lose your CHL. The State of Texas has a great CHL program. Look a Louisiana....you can't carry any place that sells alchohol. Don't give the liberal gun lobby the ammunition to further limit our "rights".
Howdy
CHL Instructor

[Keith B]

Howdy howdy! :-)) Welcome to the forum.

The Hobby Center is owned by the City of Houston per the tax records

You state you believe it IS legally posted (contrast not in question.) My question to you is; can it be legally posted if owned by the city government?

[howdy]

I will have to do some research on the question of government property and 30.06 signs. Where do the members of this forum get the idea that a 30.06 sign on a government building/property is not valid? Can someone state the law/reference to this belief. I am attending CHL instructor requal in August and I will bring this up to the state attorney.

[austin-tatious]

I will have to do some research on the question of government property and 30.06 signs. Where do the members of this forum get the idea that a 30.06 sign on a government building/property is not valid? Can someone state the law/reference to this belief. I am attending CHL instructor requal in August and I will bring this up to the state attorney.

PC 30.06 (e):
It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder cames a handgun is owned or leased
by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which
the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under
Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[howdy]

I am aware of this section of the 30.06 law, but I believe this is open for judicial review. Other areas of 46.035 are very specific in their wording; example,"do not apply"

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c)do not apply if the actor
was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.
(j) Subsections (a) and (b)(l) do not apply to a historical reenactment
performed in compliance with the rules of the Texas Alcoholic
Beverage Commission

It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder carrys a handgun is owned or leased
by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which
the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under
Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Russell...If you are an instructor, then you have sat through the legal portion of the instructors course. The Lawyer that teaches this has been teaching CHL law to instructors since I became an Instructor (2000) and she teaches the "law" to every instructor renewal class. The one thing I have learned is the "law" is built on court cases. Intoxication used to have the same meaning as DUI laws, then some court decided that impairment, ANY impairment, meant a gun packing CHL holder was "intoxicated". My original statement said I would put his before the DPS attorney and get her opinion. Instructors ask lots of questions at these renewals, and this has never come up at the four renewals I have attended. Obviously the party that posts the 30.06 sign believes it is binding. The City of Houston has the sign at the George R Brown, Reliant Center, and many other places. They have lots of Lawyers that must believe they have a right to post these signs. Again, I will ask about this section at the renewal class and report back to this forum. I have seen it mentioned many times in the forum, "who wants to be the test case". Like I tell my students, use common sense and you will be OK. I personally do not stick my fist in the face of a bear (city of Houston).

[Charles L. Cotton]

An "exception" to a statute is the strongest language that can be used to exclude certain conduct from the provisions of a statute. It is absolutely clear that 30.06 signs on government property are not enforceable unless 1) the property is already off-limits (ex. municipal courthouses); or 2) the property is already off-limits only if notice is given pursuant to TPC §30.06 (ex. meetings of governmental entities).

An argument I used to hear a few years back (but not recently) is that government owned property leased or rented to a private person or entity can be posted with an enforceable 30.06 sign by the lessee or renter. I strongly disagree since the statute focuses solely on the property being owned or leased by the government, but as I noted, I haven't heard of anyone trying that lately. In fact, the City of Houston tried that until the NRA held it's annual meeting and expo in Houston a few years ago.

Chas.

[ELB]

An argument I used to hear a few years back (but not recently) is that government owned property leased or rented to a private person or entity can be posted with an enforceable 30.06 sign by the lessee or renter. I strongly disagree since the statute focuses solely on the property being owned or leased by the government, but as I noted, I haven't heard of anyone trying that lately. In fact, the City of Houston tried that until the NRA held it's annual meeting and expo in Houston a few years ago.

Chas.

I am interested to hear your view on this -- I am even pleased, since that is the way I have read the law. I like to find that smart guys agree with me!

So this means that the private operators of the city-owned American Airlines Center in Dallas has stopped prohibiting CHL'ers from carrying at non-sporting events?

[Totally Frustrated]

Charles,
Maybe this has been discussed before, but I'd like to know why is it the gun shows held at the George R. Brown get posted 30.06 then?
Is the lessee or a vendor posting it?
It makes no sense to me why they are posted, when I can buy a weapon there, buy ammunition there, but can't carry there.

[Charles L. Cotton]

An argument I used to hear a few years back (but not recently) is that government owned property leased or rented to a private person or entity can be posted with an enforceable 30.06 sign by the lessee or renter. I strongly disagree since the statute focuses solely on the property being owned or leased by the government, but as I noted, I haven't heard of anyone trying that lately. In fact, the City of Houston tried that until the NRA held it's annual meeting and expo in Houston a few years ago.

Chas.

I am interested to hear your view on this -- I am even pleased, since that is the way I have read the law. I like to find that smart guys agree with me!

So this means that the private operators of the city-owned American Airlines Center in Dallas has stopped prohibiting CHL'ers from carrying at non-sporting events?

I don't know of American Airlines Center lessees are posting or not. I don't think they are enforceable if they do post, but there isn't any case law on point. Unfortunately, someone would have to get arrested, convicted and then appeal to test my evaluation of the statute. The language is crystal clear so they should win, but it's an expensive trip through the system.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles,
Maybe this has been discussed before, but I'd like to know why is it the gun shows held at the George R. Brown get posted 30.06 then?
Is the lessee or a vendor posting it?
It makes no sense to me why they are posted, when I can buy a weapon there, buy ammunition there, but can't carry there.

It's my understanding that people/entities leasing GRB and any other city-owned property must have insurance to cover their event. We have been told that insurers will not issue policies for gun shows that don't prohibit the carrying of loaded firearms and knowing insurance companies, I don't doubt it. Gun shows add another element to the issue of 30.06 signs on government owned property. In addition to the exception language in TPC §30.06, gun shows do not prohibit firearms, they only prohibit loaded firearms. TPC §30.06 makes no distinction about loaded v. unloaded firearms. Further, the effective notice given by a proper §30.06 sign is negated when you are allowed to enter with a firearm, so you cannot be prosecuted for criminal trespass by a licensee (TPC §30.06). I don't see a statutory vehicle to prosecute someone with a firearm if you let them enter the property knowing they had the gun. If someone were to see you with a loaded firearm they could tell you to leave and if you didn't then you could be prosecuted. Just because they let you enter with what was an unloaded firearm doesn't mean they cannot change their mind when they find out you went to the restroom and loaded up.

This is a fun little exercise in legal analysis, but the reality is that insurance companies are going to stop issuing policies for gun shows, if we keep seeing accidental discharges. When that happens, gun shows on government owned property will be a thing of the past. I don't like it, but that's the reality of the situation.

Chas.

Chas.

[Totally Frustrated]

Thanks Chas!
The insurance liability makes sense.
after waiting so long to get my plastic ,I sure didn't want to chance carrying there after seeing the 30.06 postings. i left the Glock in the truck. Next time I'll dump the mags in my pocket, and let the officers zip tie the gun. at least i'd have it with me if something goes down.