Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby KLB » Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:22 pm

The public library in Balcones Heights has an old, noncompliant sign.


TrueFlog
Senior Member
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:07 pm

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby TrueFlog » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:42 am

Dowell Middle School in McKinney has 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted at the main entrance to the building. I'm not sure if the signs violate SB 273 or not. I don't see any point in reporting them to the DA since they're not hurting anything; the school is already off-limits by statute.

User avatar

OldCurlyWolf
Senior Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby OldCurlyWolf » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:45 am

TrueFlog wrote:Dowell Middle School in McKinney has 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted at the main entrance to the building. I'm not sure if the signs violate SB 273 or not. I don't see any point in reporting them to the DA since they're not hurting anything; the school is already off-limits by statute.

Just look at it as a friendly warning.

It would probably be better if it was posted under the proper subsection of Section 46 of the Penal Code as a reminder to not cross that line while carrying.
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby ScottDLS » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:46 am

TrueFlog wrote:Dowell Middle School in McKinney has 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted at the main entrance to the building. I'm not sure if the signs violate SB 273 or not. I don't see any point in reporting them to the DA since they're not hurting anything; the school is already off-limits by statute.


They technically don't violate the law because a school is already prohibited under 46.03. I wish they would come up with a standard sign for schools/courthouses, etc. Then they could make a defense to prosecution if they don't post the sign like w/ 51% signs.
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!!!!"
---
Has your Texas Rep. co-sponsored HB560 yet?

User avatar

TangoX-ray
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:10 pm
Location: Harris/Galveston County

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby TangoX-ray » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:15 am

ScottDLS wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:Dowell Middle School in McKinney has 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted at the main entrance to the building. I'm not sure if the signs violate SB 273 or not. I don't see any point in reporting them to the DA since they're not hurting anything; the school is already off-limits by statute.


They technically don't violate the law because a school is already prohibited under 46.03. I wish they would come up with a standard sign for schools/courthouses, etc. Then they could make a defense to prosecution if they don't post the sign like w/ 51% signs.


:iagree: For any location that is prohibited under 46.03, a sign ordered from the state with a serial number and an AG-approved location. No sign, no ban. Would prevent everywhere a child or group of children have been from being an educational institution.
Native Texan :txflag: Philippians 2:3-4

"We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training." - Archiloches (650 BC)

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby JALLEN » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:36 am

Have there been any updates on complaints made to the AG, where the AG has notified the offender(s), and the signs either removed or the AG convinced they were within the law?

I find the AG letter to Brazos County earlier this year, and several others were reported as having been sent letters.

Complaints are about to be filed here, and I wonder if anything ever happens.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

User avatar

TxLobo
Senior Member
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: Brownwood, Texas

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby TxLobo » Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:32 am

JALLEN wrote:Have there been any updates on complaints made to the AG, where the AG has notified the offender(s), and the signs either removed or the AG convinced they were within the law?

I find the AG letter to Brazos County earlier this year, and several others were reported as having been sent letters.

Complaints are about to be filed here, and I wonder if anything ever happens.


There have been several counties/cities that have removed signs after review by the AG and a letter being sent to them. Liberty County, I understand is fighting back.. Their commissioners want the entire courthouse declared as "offices of the court" .. we shall see how it's played out.
"It's not the wolves of the wild that I fear, but the sheep, the sheep cause me concern.."

1911, 'cause life's too short to carry an ugly gun...

User avatar

AJSully421
Senior Member
Posts: 1194
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Benbrook / SW Fort Worth

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby AJSully421 » Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:02 am

JALLEN wrote:Have there been any updates on complaints made to the AG, where the AG has notified the offender(s), and the signs either removed or the AG convinced they were within the law?

I find the AG letter to Brazos County earlier this year, and several others were reported as having been sent letters.

Complaints are about to be filed here, and I wonder if anything ever happens.


I sent one in on Benbrook city hall and PD in early May, a few days later I got a copy of the letter sent to the city informing them of the complaint and it gave them 10 days to retort. Nothing else yet.

By the way, I talked to a rep at the AG's office and he said that they had traveled to several locations in the state to work with these places to make sure that the law is being followed by both sides. That coordination takes time.

At least we have some sort of a recourse now.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan, 1964


imkopaka
Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:30 pm
Location: Lamesa, TX

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby imkopaka » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:43 am

Here in Lamesa, our City Hall posted 30.06 and 30.07 back in February. I usually have no business there, so I thought nothing of it, but the more I drive out there to pay my water bill, the more it aggravates me. An excerpt from the Lamesa Press Reporter:

The City of Lamesa soon will be posting signs at entrances into City Hall to prohibit the carrying of handguns or other firearms – open or concealed – in a large portion of the ground floor level of that building.
A resolution to that effect was approved by the Lamesa City Council in a 5-1 vote on Tuesday evening with Council member Chance Britt casting the only negative vote.
...
The area of City Hill where guns will be prohibited is that area west of the glass partition, which separates administrative offices from the open central area where municipal court and City Council meetings are held. The area affected by the resolution will include the hallway that leads from the front doors of City Hall to the payment window for the water department.


Their reasoning for the ban is that they occasionally conduct municipal court in that large open area where city council meetings are held. We have a separate court building down the street, so this is not the regular courthouse. For some reason I have it in my head that if it is only being used as a court sometimes, they cannot post it all the time. Am I correct?

Is this something I should address, or do they seem to be in accordance with the law here?
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Carry gun: Springfield XD Tactical .45

User avatar

JustSomeOldGuy
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:49 am

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby JustSomeOldGuy » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:35 pm

TrueFlog wrote:Dowell Middle School in McKinney has 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted at the main entrance to the building. I'm not sure if the signs violate SB 273 or not. I don't see any point in reporting them to the DA since they're not hurting anything; the school is already off-limits by statute.


Somewhere between February and April of this year, the Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District posted all of their campus locations with 30.06 and 30.07 signs at each location's main entry door. The one below is representative of what all the ones I've entered so far at Texas3006.com look like;
https://www.texas3006.com/getimage.php?id=2019
member of the church of San Gabriel de Possenti
lay brother in the order of St. John Moses Browning
USPSA limited/single stack/revolver

User avatar

AJSully421
Senior Member
Posts: 1194
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Benbrook / SW Fort Worth

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby AJSully421 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:24 pm

imkopaka wrote:Here in Lamesa, our City Hall posted 30.06 and 30.07 back in February. I usually have no business there, so I thought nothing of it, but the more I drive out there to pay my water bill, the more it aggravates me. An excerpt from the Lamesa Press Reporter:

The City of Lamesa soon will be posting signs at entrances into City Hall to prohibit the carrying of handguns or other firearms – open or concealed – in a large portion of the ground floor level of that building.
A resolution to that effect was approved by the Lamesa City Council in a 5-1 vote on Tuesday evening with Council member Chance Britt casting the only negative vote.
...
The area of City Hill where guns will be prohibited is that area west of the glass partition, which separates administrative offices from the open central area where municipal court and City Council meetings are held. The area affected by the resolution will include the hallway that leads from the front doors of City Hall to the payment window for the water department.


Their reasoning for the ban is that they occasionally conduct municipal court in that large open area where city council meetings are held. We have a separate court building down the street, so this is not the regular courthouse. For some reason I have it in my head that if it is only being used as a court sometimes, they cannot post it all the time. Am I correct?

Is this something I should address, or do they seem to be in accordance with the law here?


If there is anything that is not covered under Cp 46, it cannot be legally posted. Hallways, bathrooms, a single non-court office... Anything makes it unenforceable. In that case, they will have to post individual offices or rooms.

The water bill desk and hallway makes the signs illegal. Turn them in.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan, 1964


imkopaka
Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:30 pm
Location: Lamesa, TX

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby imkopaka » Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:22 am

Alright, I sent a letter, pictures, and a copy of opinion KP-0098 to the City Secretary today via certified mail with return receipt. Now we wait...
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Carry gun: Springfield XD Tactical .45


imkopaka
Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:30 pm
Location: Lamesa, TX

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby imkopaka » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:34 am

Interesting. I got a call from the city attorney today. He said that the sign on the west entrance was unnecessary at the very least because it is a locked staff entrance / fire escape. He also said the sign on the east entrance was not part of the council's vote and directly violates his legal advice during the voting period. He's not sure when or why they put it up, but he will be telling them to remove it. The main (north) entrance is a bit trickier.

The main hall (first room you enter through the north entrance) apparently houses the desk of the court clerk, making it an office of the court even during those times when the court itself is not in session. The water payment desk is also where court payments are made. These are open during all regular business hours. Because you cannot reach any other area of the building without passing through this area, the building is inadvertently gun-free because the main hall is legally gun-free. Due to this new information, I have decided to refer this case to the AG only if the signs on the west and particularly east entrances are not removed. If the signs on the east entrance stay up (banning a part of the building separate from the main hall), I will send it off.

Not a perfect win, but it appears to meet the requirements of law and it was voted upon rather than unilaterally decided upon, so that makes me feel a little less offended by it. The city attorney is LTC himself, and wishes the building were not posted at all, but based on his understanding of the law and AG opinions he feels the north signs are legal.

Edit: Stopped by today to pay my water bill and the east and west signs are down! I'm satisfied with that I suppose.
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Carry gun: Springfield XD Tactical .45

User avatar

Rhino1
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: Smithson Valley (Comal County)

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby Rhino1 » Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:00 pm

Success in getting one sign moved! A couple of months ago, i noticed that the new Comal County Annex building in Bulverde was posted 3006/3006. This is an office that houses the tax office, county clerk, constable and JP court. I went through the procedures to take photos, file notice with Comal County, then filing complaint with the Attorney General's office. i received correspondence fromm them to complete all prerequisites.

I was in the area today and saw that the signs were removed. I walked inside to check further and found that they had been moved to outside the JP court. I'm still not sure why that is necessary since we cannot carry in a courtroom anyway.

The process does work, at least in some cases.

BTW, i had originally posted on the Texas 3006.com app so i added an additional comment as an update. Great app, highly recommend it.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Postby Jusme » Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:48 am

Rhino1 wrote:Success in getting one sign moved! A couple of months ago, i noticed that the new Comal County Annex building in Bulverde was posted 3006/3006. This is an office that houses the tax office, county clerk, constable and JP court. I went through the procedures to take photos, file notice with Comal County, then filing complaint with the Attorney General's office. i received correspondence fromm them to complete all prerequisites.

I was in the area today and saw that the signs were removed. I walked inside to check further and found that they had been moved to outside the JP court. I'm still not sure why that is necessary since we cannot carry in a courtroom anyway.

The process does work, at least in some cases.

BTW, i had originally posted on the Texas 3006.com app so i added an additional comment as an update. Great app, highly recommend it.



Yeah the Johnson County Annex, in Alvarado is the same way, and they also post temporary signs when one area is being used a a polling place. Both areas are already prohibited by statute, but I guess they just want to cover all bases.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests