30.06 Ruling Letters

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


mr1337
Senior Member
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
Location: Austin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby mr1337 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:12 pm

chasfm11 wrote:
casp625 wrote:So... all licensed child care centers are statutorily off limits since they are a school? Does this include daycares or does child care = daycare?


I danced with this problem earlier this year. In January, the CPS sent out emails to many (all?) licensed preschool locations stating that Open Carry did not change anything and that carry of licensed handguns had always been prohibited. They went into detail about 30.06 and 30.07. I wrote back to them asking their authority to issue the restriction and they quoted a part of the Administrative code. I don't pretend to understand that. The pre-school that I was working with was part of a church and the church did not want to post any signs. Since CPS can audit the pre-school and the license could be suspended for non-compliance (they have a myriad of reasons including not deep enough mulch around playground equipment), the church wrote a statement in to the handbook that the parents must sign, quoting the CPS language. The church was not equipped or willing to contest the CPS wording.

Given the current situation with CPS, I'm hoping that the 2017 Legislature can bring some sanity to their operation.


So basically child care centers are only off-limits if they post 30.06/07 or are in an otherwise prohibited location. Administrative code only applies to the child care facility, not license holders.

Remember that in order to receive 30.06/07 notice, any written communication must be as described in the statute. If the CPS wording doesn't match that, it's not enforceable. (However, verbal notice does not require any specific wording.)
Keep calm and carry.

Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.


rotor
Senior Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby rotor » Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:02 pm

The AG has made a big jump here

"Upon review, the OAG finds the pre-school is exclusively owned and operated by a private party
and is not operated by the city. The OAG concludes a reviewing court would likely find that a
licensed child-care facility is a "school or educational institution" for purposes of section
46.03(a)(l) of the Penal Code.
Accordingly, a handgun license holder is prohibited from
possessing a firearm on the physical premises of the pre-school, consisting of those rooms in the
community center that are operated solely as a pre-school and to which the pre-school has an
exclusive right of use."

This is not written into law but his interpretation. Wow.


locke_n_load
Senior Member
Posts: 922
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby locke_n_load » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:52 pm

Gotta pass 560. Paxton is turning out to be a little too left on these decisions.
"They that would give up Essential Liberty, for a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

EDC - Glock 26 Gen IV
CHL Holder since 10/08


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts: 3133
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby chasfm11 » Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:14 am

mr1337 wrote:
So basically child care centers are only off-limits if they post 30.06/07 or are in an otherwise prohibited location. Administrative code only applies to the child care facility, not license holders.

Remember that in order to receive 30.06/07 notice, any written communication must be as described in the statute. If the CPS wording doesn't match that, it's not enforceable. (However, verbal notice does not require any specific wording.)


The email that I saw from CPS went into the detail of 30.06 and 30.07 notification including the signs. The implied threat is that if the hosting organization for the pre-school doesn't "comply" with the CPS requirements for the license, the license is revoked. That would mean that the church could no longer host the pre-school. From talking to the leaders in charge of the pre-school, the no-gun policy is only one of many things for which the license could be revoked.

All that said, the CPS directives on firearms seem a lot like the current ban on some types of firearms and magazines in Connecticut. The whole situation hinges on the level of enforcement. I toured several of the churches in our area with pre-schools and none of them had 30.06 and 30.07 signs up. I suspect that it will take an overt act by CPS against one church sponsored (or other) pre-school to change that. The email went into detail about the pre-schools that are held in someone's home and the requirements for firearms there. I've looked at the commercial, stand-alone pre-school/child care facilities in this area and found none of them posted externally either. They might have signs behind their locked doors that I couldn't see, however.

I recommended that the church use the exact CPS wording from the email to include in the pre-school parent handbook because I understood that it isn't enforceable. But a good argument could be made that the church is complying with the CPS directive since it is their exact wording. There is no practical way for the church to put up and take down TPC type signage on the ends of the pre-school day. While the pre-school is physically separated and locked during operation, the teachers take the students to other parts of the church facility on occasion and full compliance would require the church and all of its 9 entrances to be posted. The church leaders have prohibited OC but are handling it with written notice passed out to someone with a visible gun rather than posting signs as some churches have done. There is no current desire by the church leaders to post 30.06 signs on the facility.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5702
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby ELB » Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:15 pm

Three more Ruling Letters have been posted:

12/22/16 Universal City Municipal Building, found in violation, enforcement abated until court case is settled
12/22/16 Plano Sports Authority StarCenter, no violation, government land leased to private non-profit
12/22/16 Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, no violation, government land leased to private non-profit


I wonder if the judge in the case that the AG has filed against Austin has parked the case waiting to see if the Legislature will do anything about the court house/multi purpose building issue?
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5702
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby ELB » Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:37 am

Three new Ruling Letters were issued on 15 August 2017:

Texas Health & Human Services Commission - Broadmoor Building OAG Complaint No. 44
By correspondence dated March 7, 2016, Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support
Services Rolando Garza provided the OAG with a response to the complaint on behalf of HHSC.
HHSC's response states the Texas Facilities Commission ("TFC") leases the Broadmoor building
on behalf of HHSC, and neither HHSC nor TFC posted the signage referenced in the citizen
complaint nor requested that the signage be posted. HHSC's correspondence further indicates the
landlord of the property intends to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns throughout the
property and the buildings located therein.

After review, the OAG determines the 30.06 signs at issue were posted by the landlord of the
property upon which the Broadmoor building is located, and were not posted by or at the request
of HHSC. Further, a reviewing court would likely conclude that under existing law the landlord
of this property is not a political subdivision of the state for purposes of section 41 l.209(a) of the
Government Code. Accordingly, the OAG finds signage posted at the entrances to property upon
which the Broadmoor building is located are not in violation of section 411.209 of the Government
Code. The OAG is closing this complaint.


Johnson City City Hall OAG Complaint No. 40
The Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") received a citizen complaint, pursuant to section
411.209 of the Government Code, concerning the wrongful exclusion of handgun license holders
from the Johnson City City Hall building. While reviewing this complaint, the OAG received
correspondence from City Attorney Elizabeth Elleson stating the signage upon which the
complaint is based is posted outside the entrance of a room that serves as the municipal courtroom
and as the city council chambers during specific days and times of the month. Ms. Elleson further
informs the OAG that the signs are visible only when court is in session or when a city council
meeting is occurring, and are covered at all other times. Based on this representation, the OAG
concludes Johnson City's voluntary compliance has resolved the issue. Therefore, the OAG is
closing this complaint.


Killeen Police Department OAG Complaint Nos. 21, 68
Upon review, the OAG finds the city may prohibit a handgun license holder who is carrying a
handgun from entering onto the premises of the portion of the headquarters building constituting
a correctional facility, pursuant to section 46.035(b)(3) of the Penal Code. However, section
46.035(b)(3) does not allow a political subdivision to prohibit licensed handgun holders from
entering an entire building simply because a correctional facility located in a portion of a dual-use
facility. Consequently, the OAG has determined the sign at the entrance of the headquarters
building is in violation of the Government Code.

The city has fifteen (15) days from the receipt of this written notice to cure the violation.


Time has surely expired for the Killeen PD to come into compliance with the law. If there are any Killeenites (Killeenians?) here and want something to do, would be interested if the KPD has been on the ball or not.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

bigtek
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:48 am

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby bigtek » Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:46 pm

Image
Give peace a chance.

I'll cover you in case it doesn't work out.


Aunt Eva
Junior Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby Aunt Eva » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:40 pm

Lynyrd wrote::tiphat:
Amazing! The AG's office has taken some strong stances against some of the county governments. It seems as if some of the criticism against Mr. Paxton was out of place. He may be moving slow, but at least he is giving notice. I'll bet there will be more to come out of all this dust.

A year later, the progress of the lawsuits tells which side was on target.


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest