Search found 1 match

by Charles L. Cotton
Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:13 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: 30.07 on City-Owned Property
Replies: 8
Views: 2346

Re: 30.07 on City-Owned Property

G.A. Heath wrote:I have not run this past Charles, or any attorney who is knowledgeable in this field, but I was recently asked by someone who is an attorney what I thought of this issue because he knows of my interest in this and that I may have encountered this issue being discussed. This particular self identified attorney suggested that because the language of 30.07 refers to a license holder, and therefor a license, a local government runs afoul of the fines for signs law by posting a 30.07 sign. I have not met this individual in person and can not verify he is who he says he is, however his logic makes sense and does line up with the relevant AG opinions.
30.07 language wrote:Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly
411.209(a) wrote: 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.
Now this is interesting and he may be correct. However, now that the license has been renamed a License to Carry a Handgun, it may remove the already thin argument that could be made that §411.209 applied to unenforceable §30.07 signs also.

Chas.

Return to “30.07 on City-Owned Property”