TexasCHLforum.com

I have written a bill but I can't say more at this time.

Chas.

If the H560 passes, it would be a mute issue, no?

Russell wrote:HB 56 affects first responders in the discharge of their duties. This doesn't include normal citizen LTC'ers is my understanding.

HB 560 removes 46.03/46.035 restrictions for LTCers. This does not affect private property being leased by a governmental building.

Thank you. I am rusty after 2-weeks vacation.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have written a bill but I can't say more at this time.

Chas.

I hope it includes doubling the fines for any governmental body that allows or fails to prevent a private entity from posting.

I am interested to see some recourse for a LTC who is physically excluded from a publicly owned venue, regardless of whether a sign is present or not. This is what is done now by private entity security operating on public property...eg Cowboys Stadium, State Fair, etc.

Perhaps some civil recourse with the fines/damages to go to the individual excluded. Otherwise the entities will just continue to deny entry even in the absence of signs. The only recourse now is to try to sue for being unlawfully excluded and get court orders, enjoining the cities/entities from doing it in the future (good luck). I'm not even sure the current statute provides standing for private citizens to sue, and it currently doesn't provide for damages either.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the State Fair reimpose the CC ban, without an updated statute.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the AG is saying the 30.06/30.07 signs are valid / enforceable under current law. I thought that he just said that there was no violation of the "fines for signs" law and did not opine on the legal enforceability of such signage.

In other words, if the private lessee posts a 30.06 sign on government owned property and I as an LTC holder walk right by it with my CC weapon, then there are no legal violations by any party. At least, that's how I had understood the current situation.

Regardless, I agree that we need to change this situation. Especially when these private lessees then use government resources (aka LEO's) to enforce their invalid restrictions.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the AG is saying the 30.06/30.07 signs are valid / enforceable under current law. I thought that he just said that there was no violation of the "fines for signs" law and did not opine on the legal enforceability of such signage.

In other words, if the private lessee posts a 30.06 sign on government owned property and I as an LTC holder walk right by it with my CC weapon, then there are no legal violations by any party. At least, that's how I had understood the current situation.

Regardless, I agree that we need to change this situation. Especially when these private lessees then use government resources (aka LEO's) to enforce their invalid restrictions.

You are correct - the AG has said that private entities can't violate the "fines for signs" law because they are not a government subdivision. The government subdivision is not liable because they did not post the sign. LTCs are not in violation when they walk past said sign because they are on government-owned property.

mr1337 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the AG is saying the 30.06/30.07 signs are valid / enforceable under current law. I thought that he just said that there was no violation of the "fines for signs" law and did not opine on the legal enforceability of such signage.

In other words, if the private lessee posts a 30.06 sign on government owned property and I as an LTC holder walk right by it with my CC weapon, then there are no legal violations by any party. At least, that's how I had understood the current situation.

Regardless, I agree that we need to change this situation. Especially when these private lessees then use government resources (aka LEO's) to enforce their invalid restrictions.

You are correct - the AG has said that private entities can't violate the "fines for signs" law because they are not a government subdivision. The government subdivision is not liable because they did not post the sign. LTCs are not in violation when they walk past said sign because they are on government-owned property.

Thanks. I was confused by the OP's reference to "enforceable" 30.06/30.07 signs. To me, the signs we are talking about are not enforceable. They are just a nuisance. That is, until the lessee convinces the local police to help them enforce their restrictions.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the AG is saying the 30.06/30.07 signs are valid / enforceable under current law. I thought that he just said that there was no violation of the "fines for signs" law and did not opine on the legal enforceability of such signage.

In other words, if the private lessee posts a 30.06 sign on government owned property and I as an LTC holder walk right by it with my CC weapon, then there are no legal violations by any party. At least, that's how I had understood the current situation.

Regardless, I agree that we need to change this situation. Especially when these private lessees then use government resources (aka LEO's) to enforce their invalid restrictions.

You are correct - the AG has said that private entities can't violate the "fines for signs" law because they are not a government subdivision. The government subdivision is not liable because they did not post the sign. LTCs are not in violation when they walk past said sign because they are on government-owned property.

Thanks. I was confused by the OP's reference to "enforceable" 30.06/30.07 signs. To me, the signs we are talking about are not enforceable. They are just a nuisance. That is, until the lessee convinces the local police to help them enforce their restrictions.

The question comes when the private entity refuses entry or asks the license holder to leave based on the fact that the license holder is carrying.

This is specifically exempted from the general 30.05 trespass law, deferring it to 30.06.

30.06 doesn't apply on government property.

So if you are asked to leave and don't - or a sign is posted, you might be arrested for trespass, go to court and everything, just for your lawyer to fight to have the charges dropped because of the 30.06/07 government property exemption.

Even without that specific scenario, unenforceable signs and/or verbal notice are an intimidation factor aimed at LTC holders. Many people would just as soon return their weapon to their vehicle, even though it's perfectly legal to carry in a place that falls in this category. The aim is to eliminate this facade of enforce-ability so that more people will not mistakenly give up their 2nd Amendment and Article 1 Section 23 (TX Constitution) rights.

The issue is that many of these privately operated public venues have metal detectors and pat downs and will physically prevent your entry. Unless you are able to force yourself past, or hide the weapon from the screening, you will have to leave. Even LEO's have prevented entry in some counties, while they are fighting the AG in court. So here we are 15 months after "fines for signs" and no fine has yet been levied. The opinion from the AG has been that it doesn't apply to private entities on public property. And there is apparently no recourse if said entity physically prevents your entry to publicly owned which you otherwise have a right to enter...

Russell wrote:

mr1337 wrote:The question comes when the private entity refuses entry or asks the license holder to leave based on the fact that the license holder is carrying.

Bingo.

For all purposes anybody here wants to describe or argue, they are enforceable until we get law in place to stop it.

Nobody here is going to win an argument with private security nor a police officer over 30.06 signage not being technically enforceable.

You can try to conceal and carry past these unenforceable signs and unless someone notices, or there is screening, it shouldn't be an issue. The issue I mention in my other posts is where there is screening.