State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

CHL's United is a movement with a single goal of removing unnecessary and potentially dangerous restrictions on Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


Topic author
DougC
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:51 am

State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

Postby DougC » Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:58 am

From Dallas Morning News 8/24/2015:
"In Texas’ hard-charging gun community, the Dallas Zoo is something of a terra incognita.

The property is city-owned — under state law, that would typically mean holders of concealed handgun licenses could carry pistols there. But the zoo is privately run, and it posts “no guns” signs, pointing to exemptions in the statute for “amusement parks” and “educational institutions.”

Gun owners have long argued over the arrangement, and now, a new state law could help settle the debate over that and other aspects of Texas’ gun laws. Starting in September, Texans will have a formal process by which to complain to the state attorney general about government entities that might wrongfully bar concealed guns." :iagree:

Read more at http://goo.gl/PDmG8s

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts: 11592
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

Postby C-dub » Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:32 am

The zoo is not an amusement park. It also does not qualify as an educational institution. People are amused there and there is some education going on, but that can be said of many places.

Fair Park, in Dallas, is also privately managed. They know better and we covered all that with them years ago. The property is still owned by the city and they will lose this battle.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

User avatar

baldeagle
Senior Member
Posts: 5240
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

Postby baldeagle » Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:57 am

Well, I'm having fun in there right now. :biggrinjester:
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member

User avatar

Vol Texan
Senior Member
Posts: 1597
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:18 am
Location: Houston

Re: State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

Postby Vol Texan » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:51 am

Well, this article reminds me that SB273 was one of my favorite bills passed this year.

Finally, we'll get the question answered...can we carry at the Houston Zoo, which is privately run, but on city owned land? And the GWB convention center? And why is the HPD Westside Command Center building posted, when only some of the rooms in the building have traffic court inside?

And the list goes on and on. I know that I personally don't have the knowledge base and/or resources to start all those fights, but eventually someone will.

Being able to proactively fight this (rather than getting wrongfully arrested and pray that good case law arises from it) is a good thing, if you ask me.
Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.

NRA Certified Pistol Instructor | www.Texas3006.com Moderator

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7825
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

Postby mojo84 » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:03 pm

This is where the idea of owned by city or state and leased to or ran by private company gets tested. I've heard the argument of who is running the operation or business is the determinining factor since a lease or operating agreement conveys rights similar to ownership without the actual ownership.

Should be interesting.

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

Postby Pawpaw » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:29 pm

mojo84 wrote:This is where the idea of owned by city or state and leased to or ran by private company gets tested. I've heard the argument of who is running the operation or business is the determinining factor since a lease or operating agreement conveys rights similar to ownership without the actual ownership.

Should be interesting.


I'm sure I remember Charles explaining that the lessor (the city) cannot transfer a right (prohibiting licensed carry) that they don't possess in the first place.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7825
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

Postby mojo84 » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:33 pm

I understand. However, it doesn't stop people from claiming it until it gets tested in court. ;-)

If it was so clear cut, it wouldn't be an issue. The tennant/lessee usually claims not all property rights are conveyed from one to another but are natural property rights regardless whether they own or lease the property. They claim just because the lessor doesn't have the right, the tenant isn't also void of that right. Hoping it gets resolved soon.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16531
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:51 pm

mojo84 wrote:I understand. However, it doesn't stop people from claiming it until it gets tested in court. ;-)

If it was so clear cut, it wouldn't be an issue. The tennant/lessee usually claims not all property rights are conveyed from one to another but are natural property rights regardless whether they own or lease the property. They claim just because the lessor doesn't have the right, the tenant isn't also void of that right. Hoping it gets resolved soon.


It's going to be a mighty expensive test for any city. The starting fine is $1,000 per sign per day. If the case takes two years from trial through appeal, then the city will be liable for $730,000 for each sign, plus legal expenses for the AG. If each cashier at the Dallas Zoo has a 30.06 sign, then it's $730,000 X [number of cashiers] plus legal expenses.

From what I've read, the Dallas Zoo isn't trying to claim that the operator can post a 30.06 sign on city-owned property. They are claiming they are both 1) an "educational institution," and 2) an amusement park, as defined in the Code. That's laughable!!

Chas.
Image

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7825
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

Postby mojo84 » Mon Aug 24, 2015 6:49 pm

Yeah, the zoo is making a different argument than what I'm mentioning. However, I'm hoping the ruling will shed some light on some other situations such as gun shows in publicly owned facilities and such. The topic is more general than just the Zoo situation so I took the liberty to mention other situations also.

I understand how expensive it will be, however, I also realize those that live on other people's money tend not to be such good stewards.


Return to “Good Guys United”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest