Further summarizing, for my own benefit if no one else's:
The AG complained that the
1. Gunbuster sign and the
2. oral warnings by security officers at the main entrance(s) of City Hall
violated the provisions of "fines for signs" law because they prevented LTC holders from carrying in the parts of City Hall that were not courtrooms, and the definition of "premises" restricts the city to controlling LTC carry only in courtrooms.
The City argued that they were not in violation because they could ban LTC carry throughout the entire building for three reasons:
1. City Hall contains rooms that are used as courts, and the "premises" definition means the whole building can be restricted.
2. The "school-sponsored activity" prohibition on LTC carry applies because the Peoples Art Gallery displays Austin ISD student artwork through an agreement between the City and AISD.
3. The "open meetings" prohibition on LTC carry applies because the city holds open meetings under Gov Code 511.
The judge decided:
1. The gunbuster sign has no effect on LTC carry, so the city is not in violation of the "fines for signs" law. In general this is a good thing for LTC holders.
2. On "premises:
a. The "building or portion of building" definition of "premises" means the City gets to choose whether to prohibit LTC carry only in court rooms or thoughout the whole building. BUT,
b. There is a temporal restriction on the location restriction: the City may ban LTC carry throughout the whole building ONLY when the courtrooms are being used. If the court meets only 3 or 4 times a month, the building may not be restricted from licensed carry for the entire month. This is not as good as we would like but this is still a win, or at least not a complete loss for licensed carry.
3. Passive display of student artwork does not constitute "school sponsored activity" and the city cannot use that to ban LTC carry. This is a win. However it appears that "school-sponsored activity" can occur in the City Hall, and licensed carry can be restricted ONLY during those times (again, a temporal restriction on that prohibition).
4. Prohibition of licensed carry in City Hall during meetings that meet the requirements of GC 511 open meetings can be enforced only during the times of the meetings and only for the rooms that the meetings occur in. This is another win.
The judge did not decide:
1. Whether the "oral communications" of the security officers were violations of the "fines for signs" law. This will depend on
a. Whether the oral communications were delivered when NO court was in session and/or NO school-sponsored activity was being conducted, and
b. Whether the oral communications met the requirements of GC 411.209 (fines for signs section).
These are apparently the issues that will be hashed out at trial.
Whether an oral communication must meet certain criteria, like having to explicitly refer to 30.06, to have legal effect on a LTC holder is an interesting question!