Search found 5 matches

by imkopaka
Sun May 06, 2018 3:09 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?
Replies: 1085
Views: 333471

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

Odinvalknir wrote:Just curious, what would qualify a sign as improperly posted? Other than the whole size thing and being hidden or not conspicuously placed.


What qualifies a sign for posting in this thread? I'm brand new to CC and have been searching the front of buildings before entering so far lol.
This particular thread is about cities posting signage when they have no right to do so (e.g. city park, municipal building, public area of police station, city-owned community center, etc). The applicable statute is as follows:
Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (i), a state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a license to carry a handgun, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

(b) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state that violates Subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of:

(1) not less than $1,000 and not more than $1,500 for the first violation; and

(2) not less than $10,000 and not more than $10,500 for the second or a subsequent violation.

(c) Each day of a continuing violation of Subsection (a) constitutes a separate violation.

(d) A resident of this state or a person licensed to carry a handgun under this subchapter may file a complaint with the attorney general that a state agency or political subdivision is in violation of Subsection (a) if the resident or person provides the agency or subdivision a written notice that describes the violation and specific location of the sign found to be in violation and the agency or subdivision does not cure the violation before the end of the third business day after the date of receiving the written notice. A complaint filed under this subsection must include evidence of the violation and a copy of the written notice.

(e) A civil penalty collected by the attorney general under this section shall be deposited to the credit of the compensation to victims of crime fund established under Subchapter B, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(f) Before a suit may be brought against a state agency or a political subdivision of the state for a violation of Subsection (a), the attorney general must investigate the complaint to determine whether legal action is warranted. If legal action is warranted, the attorney general must give the chief administrative officer of the agency or political subdivision charged with the violation a written notice that:

(1) describes the violation and specific location of the sign found to be in violation;

(2) states the amount of the proposed penalty for the violation; and

(3) gives the agency or political subdivision 15 days from receipt of the notice to remove the sign and cure the violation to avoid the penalty, unless the agency or political subdivision was found liable by a court for previously violating Subsection (a).

(g) If the attorney general determines that legal action is warranted and that the state agency or political subdivision has not cured the violation within the 15-day period provided by Subsection (f)(3), the attorney general or the appropriate county or district attorney may sue to collect the civil penalty provided by Subsection (b). The attorney general may also file a petition for a writ of mandamus or apply for other appropriate equitable relief. A suit or petition under this subsection may be filed in a district court in Travis County or in a county in which the principal office of the state agency or political subdivision is located. The attorney general may recover reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining relief under this subsection, including court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, investigative costs, witness fees, and deposition costs.

(h) Sovereign immunity to suit is waived and abolished to the extent of liability created by this section.

(i) Subsection (a) does not apply to a written notice provided by a state hospital under Section 552.002, Health and Safety Code.

Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (S.B. 273), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1143 (H.B. 435), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2017.
Huh. That's weird - it never mentions 30.07, only 30.06.
by imkopaka
Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:10 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?
Replies: 1085
Views: 333471

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

:iagree: That was fantastic ELB. Thank you!
by imkopaka
Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:34 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?
Replies: 1085
Views: 333471

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

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.
by imkopaka
Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:22 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?
Replies: 1085
Views: 333471

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

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...
by imkopaka
Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:43 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?
Replies: 1085
Views: 333471

Re: Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

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?

Return to “Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?”