CleverNickname wrote:Everyone agrees that if the government leases property to someone that the lessee is prohibited from posting 30.06. But what about if someone leases property to the government? The law says:
Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) 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 concealed handgun license, 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.
So the first question is, what does "leased" mean? As far as I can tell, the dictionary definition of the verb "lease" can be used both for the letting of property by the lessor and the hiring of property by the lessee. But the dictionary definition isn't necessarily the legal definition. I wasn't able to find the legal definition of "lease" in the Texas state code, but I did see in Government Code 2167 where the verb "lease" is used in talking about the state hiring property as the lessee. So it appears that the state may not post a 30.06 sign on property they hire as the lessee.
The second question is, what is "provide notice?" Ok, providing notice is posting the sign, but did the state really provide notice if they didn't post the sign, but instead the property owner posted the sign? What about if the sign is not posted on property leased by the government as the lessee, but the sign is posted only on property the landlord has not leased, but is property which anyone must pass through in order to enter the property leased by the government as lessee? For example, if a government agency leases one floor on a multi-story office building, they don't seem to be able to post a 30.06 outside their office door on that floor, but I'm not sure if the building management can't post a 30.06 on the first floor entrance. I'm pretty sure I've read of a legal doctrine (not sure of the name) where if a government entity may not perform some action then they can't require someone else to perform that action (e.g. as part of a legal agreement like a lease). But what about a lease that was signed before SB 273 came into effect? Is that now nullified?
If there's nothing preventing 30.06 posting on property leased by a government as a lessee, I can really see the Dallas Zoo (or someone similar) doing something retarded like selling a 1' strip of property surrounding the zoo to a private entity, which then posts a 30.06 on the property and leases the 1' strip back to the zoo on a 99-year lease.
As mojo84 noted, "leased" means as a lessor or lessee. The term is commonly used and needs no statutory definition. As a practical matter, the "as lessor" application will never be an issue, because the property will be owned by the government and this is a controlling issue. It doesn't matter if the government uses the property, leases it to someone else, or let's it sit unused. If the government owns the property, then the inquiry stops at that point and the provisions of SB273 apply.
The real application related to leased property is when the government leases property from a private individual or entity. SB273 applies to it as well.
"Notice" per TPC §30.06 can be oral, written, or by sign. Any of those methods of notifying a CHL will trigger SB273. If a government leases property and takes any steps to require the owner to post 30.06 signs, then the government will be sued and government officials involved may be charged with a criminal offense related to conspiring to violate Texas law. Selling property around a zoo, etc. isn't realistic. It would accomplish nothing because the legislature would be so infuriated that the law would change to deal with that issue.
Chas.
I'd love to hear their response.