UPDATE 2nd: 1-15-13

[RottenApple]

So would this make a 30.06 sign at a gun show on public property illegal?

If posted by or at the direction of a public employee, yes. If posted by a private person (such as the above mentioned gun shows), no, but those 30.06 signs are not valid because they are on public property.

[RottenApple]

So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.

30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.

Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.

Chas.

Ok. I see what you are saying. Is there anything (other than getting caught (unintentionally, of course), taking a ride, and fighting it out in court) that can be done about the invalid postings (such as at gun shows) on public property?

[steveincowtown]

So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.

30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.

Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.

Chas.

If you think the signs posted at gun shows, many museums, parking lots, the zoo, stock show, 6th floor museum, etc. are done upon instruction by a public employee, then the bill works. IMHO, if anyone (public employee or private citizen) is posting a non enforceable sign they should be held accountable.

That being said, whatever it takes to take a step foward is good with me!

[Jeff Barriault]

So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.

30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.

Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.

Chas.

I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.

[RottenApple]

I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.

Bayou Vista Municipal Court is in that same building. That's what makes it off limits.

[Reds45ACP]

I wonder about HB 508 section C, the language lends itself to a very broad interpretation.


(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a [at any] meeting of a governmental entity is held [/color]and if the
meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter

The Bold is the new language the blue is the old. I think that provides a loophole for abuse as in the city council uses all the rooms at city hall as meeting rooms as Texas law defines a meeting as 2 or more, council members are always going into each others offices.

Change "held" to a "currently in progress" might make it work

1) Yaaayyyy for 508

2)

3) Let's get the dang 30.06 sign off of Austin City Hall!!!

[Charles L. Cotton]

So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.

30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.

Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.

Chas.

I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.

Jeff: I meant I don't know of any 30.06 signs posted by private persons on government property other than at gun shows. The signs you listed were undoubtedly posted by a public employee or at the instruction of a public employee and under the Bill, this will be a violation for each day when no official meeting of a governmental agency is ongoing. That means only temporary signs can be used, just like you want.

Chas.

[2firfun50]

I wonder about HB 508 section C, the language lends itself to a very broad interpretation.


(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a [at any] meeting of a governmental entity is held [/color]and if the
meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapterThe Bold is the new language the blue is the old. I think that provides a loophole for abuse as in the city council uses all the rooms at city hall as meeting rooms as Texas law defines a meeting as 2 or more, council members are always going into each others offices.

Change "held" to a "currently in progress" might make it work

1) Yaaayyyy for 508

2)

3) Let's get the dang 30.06 sign off of Austin City Hall!!!

Would the red bolded lanuage in the bill take care of the private or impromptu meeting issue? Seems like they could only temp post for formal, open meetings.

[JP171]

I wonder about HB 508 section C, the language lends itself to a very broad interpretation.


(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a [at any] meeting of a governmental entity is held [/color]and if the
meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapterThe Bold is the new language the blue is the old. I think that provides a loophole for abuse as in the city council uses all the rooms at city hall as meeting rooms as Texas law defines a meeting as 2 or more, council members are always going into each others offices.

Change "held" to a "currently in progress" might make it work

1) Yaaayyyy for 508

2)

3) Let's get the dang 30.06 sign off of Austin City Hall!!!

Would the red bolded lanuage in the bill take care of the private or impromptu meeting issue? Seems like they could only temp post for formal, open meetings.

I think that part is ambiguous and could be used out of context as most cities post the meeting agenda months in advance and multiple times. so its an open meeting and is published as required, in example Houston, then they can say that all these rooms are off limits because they are being used as breakout rooms for comitee meetings as well as the actual council chamber. I think that maybe Rex has it right limit to the actual times when the meeting is being held

[Jeff Barriault]

I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.

Bayou Vista Municipal Court is in that same building. That's what makes it off limits.

Didn't even know that there was a municipal court office in the building. Being a multi use building and not an actual court building, how does the existing statute apply?

(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;

Does it apply to the entire building, or just the offices utilized by the court?

[RottenApple]

Didn't even know that there was a municipal court office in the building. Being a multi use building and not an actual court building, how does the existing statute apply?

(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;

Does it apply to the entire building, or just the offices utilized by the court?

That is the $64,000 question. IMHO, it should only apply to the offices utilized by the court. In practice, I'm sure it applies to the whole building. The legislature didn't make it very clear and, as far as I'm aware, there is no case law on the subject.