Is this a legit sign?

[Soap]

[G.A. Heath]

Without knowing where that sign is at all I can say is that in Texas it is not a legit sign unless the property is off limits per TPC sections 46.03 or 46.035.

[RogueUSMC]

Sweeny, Texas? I know Tyler has something similar on government buildings but you go read the ordnance and it says that licensed carriers are excepted...

[thetexan]

That sign has no legal authority over a 411 LTC holder lawfully carrying his gun. Also the city can not prohibit the lawful carriage of handguns by an LTC holder in Texas.

tex

[Soap]

It's a public park, the sign is never there except when they hold an event. Almost like its just there to make people feel happy. I do not believe it's legit and I carried anyway. From what I was told and how I understand the laws here it is bogus and illegal to post it. The events are held by the city as well. Everything is PUBLIC. My worry is someone who is a LTC might leave his gun in his car and have it stolen or run into trouble. I forget the number of people at the event but it was in the thousands. I had to walk blocks and blocks to the park, so I was glad I had a light and side arm just in case. The light came in handy for cars speeding up and down the neihborhoods. Anyway, I digress, I don't believe it was a legal sign but I didn't find anyone to complain too. For obvious reasons I didn't talk to the police, I wanted to stay and enjoy the fireworks.

[ScottDLS]

It's a public park, the sign is never there except when they hold an event. Almost like its just there to make people feel happy. I do not believe it's legit and I carried anyway. From what I was told and how I understand the laws here it is bogus and illegal to post it. The events are held by the city as well. Everything is PUBLIC. My worry is someone who is a LTC might leave his gun in his car and have it stolen or run into trouble. I forget the number of people at the event but it was in the thousands. I had to walk blocks and blocks to the park, so I was glad I had a light and side arm just in case. The light came in handy for cars speeding up and down the neihborhoods. Anyway, I digress, I don't believe it was a legal sign but I didn't find anyone to complain too. For obvious reasons I didn't talk to the police, I wanted to stay and enjoy the fireworks.

You could always open carry next time if you wanted to make a stand...

[RogueUSMC]

There is nothing illegal about it. Illegal would be posting 30.06/30.07. If you look up your city ordnance, it is probably (redundantly) reiterating state law that takes precedence. The city of tyler has similar signs posted at city facilities but when you look up the ordnance, it clearly states that licensed carriers are excepted.

Sec. 4-102. City premises; prohibition against firearms; general exception for lawfully licensed handguns; other exceptions.

• a. It is unlawful to carry any firearm, other than a handgun lawfully licensed under State law and in compliance with State law, onto any City premises properly marked as provided in Subsection b.
  
  b. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to place signs to be printed in both English and Spanish, on City premises to indicate that the carrying of a firearm, other than a handgun lawfully licensed under State law, is prohibited.
  
  c. Subsection (a) shall not apply to:
  
  • 1. The carrying of a handgun lawfully licensed under State law and in compliance with State law. However, pursuant to State law, a peace officer who is acting in the official discharge of the officer's official duties may temporarily disarm a handgun license holder when a license holder enters a nonpublic, secure area of a building used by the Tyler Police Department for official business, if there has been provided a gun locker where the peace officer can secure the license holder's handgun, and if proper signage has been provided pursuant to State law.
    
    2. The lawful carrying of a firearm by a certified peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under State law, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.
    
    3. A commissioned security officer lawfully engaged in official duties while in uniform and with the firearm in plain view, or member of the U. S. or State armed forces, engaged in official duties. Also, Subsection (a) shall not apply to a fire fighter, or emergency personnel as defined in State law, if acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty under exigent circumstances.
  
  
  d. This section shall not apply to the carrying of a lawfully licensed handgun into a meeting of a governmental entity, which shall be governed by Section 4-103.
  
  e. This section shall not apply to the carrying of a firearm onto any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, into any City building being used as a polling place, on the premises of the Tyler Municipal Court or into any City building or offices being utilized by the Tyler Municipal Court, or into the secured areas of Tyler Pounds Regional Airport. The carrying of a firearm at such locations, and the exceptions thereto, shall be governed by applicable State and Federal laws.
  
  f. The carrying of any firearm prohibited by this section onto City premises is hereby declared to be an act of criminal trespass and is prohibited, and any person so carrying a prohibited firearm is subject to immediate removal and is subject to the penalties set forth in State law. (Ord. 0-98-27, 3/25/98) (Ord. No. 0-98-52, 6/24/98) (Ord. No. 0-2007-32; 3/28/07) (Ord. No. 0-2016-15; 2/24/16)

[mr1337]

There is nothing illegal about it. Illegal would be posting 30.06/30.07. If you look up your city ordnance, it is probably (redundantly) reiterating state law that takes precedence. The city of tyler has similar signs posted at city facilities but when you look up the ordnance, it clearly states that licensed carriers are excepted.

It's illegal for a political subdivision to give any notice or post any signs that indicate to a license holder that he/she can't carry in a place that's not prohibited by state law. Since the sign doesn't say anything about it not applying to license holders, I would say that this is an illegal sign and should be sent to the AG for review. They could probably come into compliance by adding * Unless authorized under Texas Gov. Code 411 or whatever the statute is.

[RogueUSMC]

No there is not anything illegal about it. They post no guns and give you a ordnance reference. The reference excepts those that have LTC. What their sign says is unacceptable is illegal anyway per state law. Is it redundant? yes. is it illegal? no. State statute is clear as to the signage that restricts LTC carry...that signage is not being used.

[Soccerdad1995]

No there is not anything illegal about it. They post no guns and give you a ordnance reference. The reference excepts those that have LTC. What their sign says is unacceptable is illegal anyway per state law. Is it redundant? yes. is it illegal? no. State statute is clear as to the signage that restricts LTC carry...that signage is not being used.

I disagree, but ultimately the AG should make the call here. To me, the whole point of the law is to prevent cities from telling license holders "no guns allowed" on city owned or leased property. This seems like an attempt to skirt around the law by saying no guns allowed but then referencing another document which is not readily available and which includes the exclusion for LTC holders. At a minimum, I believe that the city should amend the sign to clearly state that it does not apply to a LTC holder without requiring someone to go look up relevant city ordinances before they can use a park.

This is akin to someone placing a clear plastic bag over the portion of their gun that is not covered by a holster and walking past a valid 30.07 sign. By the letter of the law it may be technically legal, but just trying to be cute with the legal requirement.

[mr1337]

I think it should be submitted and let OAG decide.

[WTR]

From what I was taught it is as valid as a roll of Charmin and that's what it is worth using for.

[goose]

No there is not anything illegal about it. They post no guns and give you a ordnance reference. The reference excepts those that have LTC. What their sign says is unacceptable is illegal anyway per state law. Is it redundant? yes. is it illegal? no. State statute is clear as to the signage that restricts LTC carry...that signage is not being used.

I disagree, but ultimately the AG should make the call here. To me, the whole point of the law is to prevent cities from telling license holders "no guns allowed" on city owned or leased property. This seems like an attempt to skirt around the law by saying no guns allowed but then referencing another document which is not readily available and which includes the exclusion for LTC holders. At a minimum, I believe that the city should amend the sign to clearly state that it does not apply to a LTC holder without requiring someone to go look up relevant city ordinances before they can use a park.

This is akin to someone placing a clear plastic bag over the portion of their gun that is not covered by a holster and walking past a valid 30.07 sign. By the letter of the law it may be technically legal, but just trying to be cute with the legal requirement.

While I think LTC folks should keep themselves fairly informed, I agree with you completely. It should be the default stance of the government to explain the law not obscure it or be flippant with it. Federally this is probably pure naivete. But in TX I'd like to think we could fix this type of thing. Knowingly trying to restrict a right, regardless of text, is punishable.

[ELB]

I believe the Attorney General has already opined on this issue.

Hays County DA asked the AG this question:

(1) Does a sign that says, "Weapons Free Zone," but which does not
include the language of [subsection] 30.06(c)(3)(A), violate the
restrictions imposed on the government by [section] 411.209,
generally (i.e., whether or not the Hays County Government
Center constitutes court premises)?

The AG replied at length (and understand there were other questions that form the context of his answer), but I think the following excerpt is key:

To effectuate the Legislature's intent to prevent governmental entities from seeking to
wrongly exclude handguns from where they are lawful, a court would likely construe section
411.209 to be implicated by any type of notice that seeks to improperly prohibit handguns. Thus,
any oral notice given by a governmental entity regarding the prohibition of handguns, if given
where handguns are lawful, can serve as an improper exclusion in violation in section 411.209.
And the sign about which you inquire that does not use the statutory language but states that the
Center is a "Weapons Free Zone," if placed in an area where handguns are allowed, would
similarly invoke the enforcement mechanism of section 411.209.

Texas AG Opinion KP-049

Thus it appears to me that a government entity cannot legally post a sign that forbids handguns where they may legally be carried with a license.

In other words, regardless of what the city ordinance says, the sign that the OP is talking about is illegally posted and worthy of a formal complaint.

[Pig Renter]

No there is not anything illegal about it. They post no guns and give you a ordnance reference. The reference excepts those that have LTC. What their sign says is unacceptable is illegal anyway per state law. Is it redundant? yes. is it illegal? no. State statute is clear as to the signage that restricts LTC carry...that signage is not being used.

I disagree, but ultimately the AG should make the call here. To me, the whole point of the law is to prevent cities from telling license holders "no guns allowed" on city owned or leased property. This seems like an attempt to skirt around the law by saying no guns allowed but then referencing another document which is not readily available and which includes the exclusion for LTC holders. At a minimum, I believe that the city should amend the sign to clearly state that it does not apply to a LTC holder without requiring someone to go look up relevant city ordinances before they can use a park.

This is akin to someone placing a clear plastic bag over the portion of their gun that is not covered by a holster and walking past a valid 30.07 sign. By the letter of the law it may be technically legal, but just trying to be cute with the legal requirement.

I see no problem with the sign (legally speaking). Many times we LTC folk forget that there's a much bigger group out there that way outnumbers us, and that group would be the entire general public minus LTC holders. We can't always and shouldn't continually be in the habit of seeing generic signs and challenging whether they are "legal" or not, because we have to understand that they aren't usually intended for us, but for the defenseless. All LTC holders should be informed that only a few very specific signs are all we need to pay attention to and all that apply to us.

The sign serves its purpose. I might be wrong, but I do believe municipalities have the authority to prohibit guns in city parks. That's what this sign does. So if Bob Smith, who doesn't have a LTC, wanted to tote his 12-gauge to that event, then unfortunately he wouldn't be allowed.

And as far as the sign being in violation, I don't believe it is. Remember for it to be a violation it must specifically reference license holders:

"A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code."