30.07 on City-Owned Property

This forum is for general legislative discussions not specific to any given legislative session. It will remain open.

Moderator: carlson1


Topic author
TreyNTX69
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:05 pm

30.07 on City-Owned Property

Postby TreyNTX69 » Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:56 am

This is my very first post, so I apologize in advance if I've posted this in an inappropriate area or if this falls into the category of "already been asked and answered."

My question is: Can someone legally post a 30.07 sign on city-owned/leased property (assuming it doesn't meet one of the criteria in 46.03 or 46.035)?

I was certain they could not (I was very happy to see SB 273 pass during the 84th legislative session). I wanted to make sure I was correct so I re-read the text of SB 273 and I was disappointed to learn that explicitly applies only to concealed carry and the posting of a 30.06 sign. This makes sense to me given the timing because OC of a handgun was not legalized until this same legislative session.

However, when I read 30.07 I was encouraged because I believe it says, in 30.07(e), that open carry is legal on city-owned/leased property even if it is posted as 30.07.

GC Section 30.07(e) says:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder openly carries the 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.

I am now very unsure. My interpretation of the above leads me to think that I can complain to the Attorney General if the city posts a 30.06 sign on city-owned/leased property, but that no complaint vehicle/process exists if the city posts a 30.07 on that same property. BUT... that open carry on that same property would be legal, regardless of the presence of a 30.07 sign. Can someone please clarify for me?

To complicate matters, when I read on to 30.07(f) I'm even more confused. GC Section 30.07(f) says:
(f) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the handgun was carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

Open carry of a handgun in Texas MUST be done in a shoulder or belt holster, so what does this even mean? 30.07(f) seems to completely contradict my understanding of 30.07(e). Please help me understand. Thanks!

User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

Re: 30.07 on City-Owned Property

Postby G.A. Heath » Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:08 am

I have not run this past Charles, or any attorney who is knowledgeable in this field, but I was recently asked by someone who is an attorney what I thought of this issue because he knows of my interest in this and that I may have encountered this issue being discussed. This particular self identified attorney suggested that because the language of 30.07 refers to a license holder, and therefor a license, a local government runs afoul of the fines for signs law by posting a 30.07 sign. I have not met this individual in person and can not verify he is who he says he is, however his logic makes sense and does line up with the relevant AG opinions.

30.07 language wrote:Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly


411.209(a) wrote: 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.
I am a Podcaster who talks about Firearms, especially in Texas. I am also a Gun guy, Car Guy, and Computer Guy.


Solaris
Banned
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:06 pm

Re: 30.07 on City-Owned Property

Postby Solaris » Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:35 am

TreyNTX69 wrote:To complicate matters, when I read on to 30.07(f) I'm even more confused. GC Section 30.07(f) says:
(f) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the handgun was carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

Open carry of a handgun in Texas MUST be done in a shoulder or belt holster, so what does this even mean? 30.07(f) seems to completely contradict my understanding of 30.07(e). Please help me understand. Thanks!


It means if your are caught Open Carrying in a place that legally prohibits OC, you can not claim you are exempt because it was in a holster. It is an unnecessary addition to 30.07.


Topic author
TreyNTX69
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:05 pm

Re: 30.07 on City-Owned Property

Postby TreyNTX69 » Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:39 am

Thanks for the replies.

The reason for my post...
The City of San Antonio is advising parties renting the Carver Community Cultural Center (orally and in written contract) they may legally post 30.07 signage thereby banning the open carry of firearms from their venue. I believe restricting the legal open carry of firearms on this property is illegal according to TX GC 30.07(e), since it is owned and operated by a governmental entity and is not otherwise excluded in 46.03 or 46.035. I also believe this is illegal because of the opinions of AG Paxton in KP-0049.

San Antonio is being very sneaky. They're not directly posting the 30.07 signs, but they're advising parties to whom they're renting the city-owned/operated facility "You can't ban concealed carry here, but you can ban open carry at your venue if you like; but you're responsible for providing and posting the signage and providing the staff to enforce the ban."

In effect, they're keeping their hands clean because they're not posting the sign nor enforcing it themselves, but they're incorrectly advising parties renting the facility they may do so. I think it's interesting they said "You can't ban concealed carry here...". To me, this indicates they think 411.029 only applies to CC and the fact that it specifically mentions CC and not OC. However, 30.07(e) is pretty plain. I think San Antonio is afraid to tread on 30.06 too heavily now, but they seem to believe they can obstruct open carry by posting 30.07 without too much fear of penalties, esp. if posted and enforced "by proxy" by the parties to whom they rent the facility, instead of by City of San Antonio personnel directly.

I'm not sure how to deal with this. Should I just send a letter to the AG?

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 30.07 on City-Owned Property

Postby ScottDLS » Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:43 am

:iagree:

This is a very good analysis and matches what I have seen at ATT (Cowboys) Stadium when I attended a non-scholastic, non-professional sporting event. It was 30.06 and 30.07 posted and enforced by stadium security. I made a complaint to City of Arlington, and their response was.... "We didn't do anything, it was Cowboys...". I didn't have opportunity to raise to AG yet, but this shouldn't fly any more than San Antonio.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Topic author
TreyNTX69
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:05 pm

Re: 30.07 on City-Owned Property

Postby TreyNTX69 » Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:48 pm

In my situation with the Carver, they're only allowing the posting of 30.07. So, I'm not sure if I can report this to the AG under 411.209, but I'm going to try. I've drafted a letter to the AG.

In order for me to provide written notice to San Antonio, to whom must I address my letter(s)?

The City of San Antonio employee managing the Carver?
The Mayor of San Antonio?
The City Manager?
The City Clerk?

All of the above?

Also, should I send the letters certified?

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16524
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 30.07 on City-Owned Property

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:13 pm

G.A. Heath wrote:I have not run this past Charles, or any attorney who is knowledgeable in this field, but I was recently asked by someone who is an attorney what I thought of this issue because he knows of my interest in this and that I may have encountered this issue being discussed. This particular self identified attorney suggested that because the language of 30.07 refers to a license holder, and therefor a license, a local government runs afoul of the fines for signs law by posting a 30.07 sign. I have not met this individual in person and can not verify he is who he says he is, however his logic makes sense and does line up with the relevant AG opinions.

30.07 language wrote:Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly


411.209(a) wrote: 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.


Now this is interesting and he may be correct. However, now that the license has been renamed a License to Carry a Handgun, it may remove the already thin argument that could be made that §411.209 applied to unenforceable §30.07 signs also.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: 30.07 on City-Owned Property

Postby KLB » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:07 pm

TreyNTX69 wrote:In my situation with the Carver, they're only allowing the posting of 30.07. So, I'm not sure if I can report this to the AG under 411.209, but I'm going to try. I've drafted a letter to the AG.

In order for me to provide written notice to San Antonio, to whom must I address my letter(s)?

The City of San Antonio employee managing the Carver?
The Mayor of San Antonio?
The City Manager?
The City Clerk?

All of the above?

Also, should I send the letters certified?

Probably the City Clerk, but notifying the City Manager and the Mayor would not hurt.

I hate to raise problems I don't know the answer to, but the Carver Community Center is a complicated property. If you are using the Hackberry entrance to the main Carver, you will probably be on city-owned property, but don't walk around the grounds outside the building. And it's not possible to get to the entrance to the Little Carver without walking across property owned by the Carver Academy, which shares the block with the Community Center. I believe there are now easements giving the city the right to let attendees get to the Little Carver's entrance, but nobody was considering handguns. You'll be walking on an easement the fee interest under which is owned by a private school. I don't know how that shakes out, and I'm not volunteering to be the guinea pig.

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: 30.07 on City-Owned Property

Postby KLB » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:08 pm

TreyNTX69 wrote:Also, should I send the letters certified?

If you do, it's easier to prove you sent the notice.


Return to “General Legislative Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest