Just took a look at the OAG's Ruling Letters page again.
The Texas Office of the Attorney General has issued 30 Ruling Letters covering complaints about government entities posting signs or providing oral communications in violation of the signs-for-fines law. There were four instances where the OAG received two complaints about the same possible violation, so 34 complaints about 30 possible violations.
In 14 cases, before the OAG came to a determination, the government entity that was the target of the complaint notified the OAG that it had removed the illegally posted signs. The OAG marked theses instances as Resolved and closed the complaint. In most cases signs were removed entirely; in at least a couple, county governments either moved security access points or moved entire offices in order to comply with both the law and their own security requirements.
In seven cases the OAG found no violation. In four cases this was because the signs in question were posted by private entities, not "A state agency or a political subdivision of the state...". The law does not forbid private entities leasing land from or to a state agency from posting 30.06 signs, it only forbids state actors. No violations were found in each of three other instances as follows: school exception for a school administration building, amusement park (Dallas Zoo), and a case where the signs were visible outside a government room ONLY when the room was being used as a municipal court or a government meeting subject to open records act rules was being held (signs are covered at all other times).
In one case the OAG determined there was a violation and the county was issued a violation letter and a deadline. The county then moved some offices around so that they came into compliance with the law, and the OAG closed the complaint.
In six cases, the OAG determined there is a violation. One of those is against the City of Austin, and concerns a multi-use building that houses courtrooms and non-court buildings. The OAG has sees the language of the law referring to courts and offices used by the courts (which may be posted against licensed carry) very narrowly -- in his opinion it only refers to actual courtrooms and offices used by the judge. Austin refuses to accept this view and the OAG has taken them to court. Unfortunately this case is not on any kind of expedited schedule it seems. In any case, the OAG has found violations in five other cases where entire multi-use buildings containing courts are off-limits for licensed carry. He has notified them that they are in violation of the law, but will not issue a violation letter with a deadline until the Austin case is settled.
I know that in my city, a number of government posted 30.06 signs were removed as a result of this law, so beyond the formal challenges, I suspect a number of signs came down across the state.
I note that a few posts back sbrawley mentions that a Harris County Sheriff's processing center has a 30.06 in a public access area. If this is indeed the case, take note that the OAG just last month issued a violation letter to the Killeen PD, telling them that while they can post the jail portion of their building off limits to carry, they may not do so with the public access portion: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... e_Dept.pdf
This would make a good attachment to a complaint to the Harris County Sheriff's Office, followed in three days by one to the OAG.
For government entities that are still posting at this point, they are not going to remove them without somebody complaining, and the OAG is not going to say anything to them unless notified by the complaint process set up in law. I seriously doubt they read this thread just to find new violations...