TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:Am I the only one that sees this as some kinda challenge?

I was going to go to Ft Worth gun show a couple weeks ago to find out, but never got around to it.

So next gun show we meet and try and beat their system?

I am actually willing to do this and I'm fine posting about it here on a public forum. My guess on what will happen is: We will walk past the entrance concealed, pay for our ticket and go into the show. There are enough loopholes in 411.209 that if I tried to open carry I would undoubtedly be denied entrance without any consequences to the City. I've already been through this at Cowboys Stadium. On the other hand, I have carried (concealed) into one of my county annex buildings that was posted (wrongly) right past the Deputy Constable on duty and into the County Clerk's (not court clerk) office...

I wrote the original post for this topic 7 months ago and I stand by what I said. In fact, I now agree with some other posters that 411.209 as interpreted by General Paxton has caused MORE signs to go up on public property.

ScottDLS wrote:I really stopped worrying about 30.06 signs on government property when they were made inapplicable. Then when 30.06 was made a class C misdemeanor I worried much less about "taking the ride" (to the mailbox to mail in my request for a jury trial on a $200 no jail ticket). The places that still affect me are where they actively screen/wand/pat down despite being government owned. I also believe KP108 is being interpreted much more broadly than the wording of the opinion supports. I expect little change so I will continue to actively ignore the "intent" of inapplicable signs whenever I can get away with it. I am not averse to trying to conceal past the screening in these cases, but so far they've hit on my handgun and I had to do the walk of shame back to my car and write a complaint to the city.

thatguyoverthere wrote:Ok, I'll admit, I'm late to this party. I've been monitoring this situation just out of general curiosity and had not been too concerned about it one way or the other because none of the places I typically travel have this situation (yes, a terrible attitude to have, I know, and I'm properly ashamed of myself now ).

Because now I HAVE been affected. Tonight I went to my grandson's youth baseball game and noticed that the park where the fields are located is posted 30.06 and 30.07. The signs were posted by the local youths sports league (which is an independent non-profit organization not affiliated with the school system or the city), so I dutifully went back to my truck and stowed my 1911. However, after I got home I did confirm my suspicion, which was that the property where the ball fields are located is owned by the city.

I was kind of excited that I was going to get to go through the process of notifying the city, then writing a letter to the AG and all that. Then I looked over this thread some more and finally look at KP-108. What a bummer.

So, from what I understand based on that information, the 411.209 statute, KP-108, and this thread is that the youth sports league can post signs, but those signs are not enforceable because they are on city-owned property, correct?

However, if I did decide to carry there but were somehow "outed", then I could theoretically worst case "take the ride" and have to work it all out in court, correct?

Someone in this thread somewhere said this was an easy tweak to get this law fixed. That apparently won't happen in this session. I look forward to when that does eventually get done.