Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

This forum will be open on Sept. 1, 2016.

Moderators: Keith B, Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


Topic author
Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2807
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#1

Post by Russell » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:47 am

Are there any bills filed, or in the plans of being filed, that will prohibit this terrible loophole of a private entity leasing a building that is paid for by our tax dollars, and therefor being allowed by the recent AG rulings to post enforceable 30.06/30.07 signage?

I am all for private property rights when it's private money that built the structure, not my tax dollars.
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 17225
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#2

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:53 am

I have written a bill but I can't say more at this time.

Chas.
Image


Topic author
Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2807
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#3

Post by Russell » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:55 am

Thanks Charles! :tiphat:
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006

User avatar

Beiruty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8807
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Allen, Texas

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#4

Post by Beiruty » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:44 am

If the H560 passes, it would be a mute issue, no?
Last edited by Beiruty on Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member


Topic author
Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2807
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#5

Post by Russell » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:01 pm

HB 56 affects first responders in the discharge of their duties. This doesn't include normal citizen LTC'ers is my understanding.

HB 560 removes 46.03/46.035 restrictions for LTCers. This does not affect private property being leased from a governmental building.
Last edited by Russell on Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006

User avatar

Beiruty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8807
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Allen, Texas

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#6

Post by Beiruty » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:04 pm

Russell wrote:HB 56 affects first responders in the discharge of their duties. This doesn't include normal citizen LTC'ers is my understanding.

HB 560 removes 46.03/46.035 restrictions for LTCers. This does not affect private property being leased by a governmental building.
Thank you. I am rusty after 2-weeks vacation. :biggrinjester:
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6194
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#7

Post by Pawpaw » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:08 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have written a bill but I can't say more at this time.

Chas.
I hope it includes doubling the fines for any governmental body that allows or fails to prevent a private entity from posting.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#8

Post by ScottDLS » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:01 pm

I am interested to see some recourse for a LTC who is physically excluded from a publicly owned venue, regardless of whether a sign is present or not. This is what is done now by private entity security operating on public property...eg Cowboys Stadium, State Fair, etc.

Perhaps some civil recourse with the fines/damages to go to the individual excluded. Otherwise the entities will just continue to deny entry even in the absence of signs. The only recourse now is to try to sue for being unlawfully excluded and get court orders, enjoining the cities/entities from doing it in the future (good luck). I'm not even sure the current statute provides standing for private citizens to sue, and it currently doesn't provide for damages either.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the State Fair reimpose the CC ban, without an updated statute.
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!!!!"


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#9

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:11 pm

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the AG is saying the 30.06/30.07 signs are valid / enforceable under current law. I thought that he just said that there was no violation of the "fines for signs" law and did not opine on the legal enforceability of such signage.

In other words, if the private lessee posts a 30.06 sign on government owned property and I as an LTC holder walk right by it with my CC weapon, then there are no legal violations by any party. At least, that's how I had understood the current situation.

Regardless, I agree that we need to change this situation. Especially when these private lessees then use government resources (aka LEO's) to enforce their invalid restrictions.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


mr1337
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#10

Post by mr1337 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:15 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the AG is saying the 30.06/30.07 signs are valid / enforceable under current law. I thought that he just said that there was no violation of the "fines for signs" law and did not opine on the legal enforceability of such signage.

In other words, if the private lessee posts a 30.06 sign on government owned property and I as an LTC holder walk right by it with my CC weapon, then there are no legal violations by any party. At least, that's how I had understood the current situation.

Regardless, I agree that we need to change this situation. Especially when these private lessees then use government resources (aka LEO's) to enforce their invalid restrictions.
You are correct - the AG has said that private entities can't violate the "fines for signs" law because they are not a government subdivision. The government subdivision is not liable because they did not post the sign. LTCs are not in violation when they walk past said sign because they are on government-owned property.
Keep calm and carry.

Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#11

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:35 pm

mr1337 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the AG is saying the 30.06/30.07 signs are valid / enforceable under current law. I thought that he just said that there was no violation of the "fines for signs" law and did not opine on the legal enforceability of such signage.

In other words, if the private lessee posts a 30.06 sign on government owned property and I as an LTC holder walk right by it with my CC weapon, then there are no legal violations by any party. At least, that's how I had understood the current situation.

Regardless, I agree that we need to change this situation. Especially when these private lessees then use government resources (aka LEO's) to enforce their invalid restrictions.
You are correct - the AG has said that private entities can't violate the "fines for signs" law because they are not a government subdivision. The government subdivision is not liable because they did not post the sign. LTCs are not in violation when they walk past said sign because they are on government-owned property.
Thanks. I was confused by the OP's reference to "enforceable" 30.06/30.07 signs. To me, the signs we are talking about are not enforceable. They are just a nuisance. That is, until the lessee convinces the local police to help them enforce their restrictions.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


mr1337
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#12

Post by mr1337 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:58 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
mr1337 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the AG is saying the 30.06/30.07 signs are valid / enforceable under current law. I thought that he just said that there was no violation of the "fines for signs" law and did not opine on the legal enforceability of such signage.

In other words, if the private lessee posts a 30.06 sign on government owned property and I as an LTC holder walk right by it with my CC weapon, then there are no legal violations by any party. At least, that's how I had understood the current situation.

Regardless, I agree that we need to change this situation. Especially when these private lessees then use government resources (aka LEO's) to enforce their invalid restrictions.
You are correct - the AG has said that private entities can't violate the "fines for signs" law because they are not a government subdivision. The government subdivision is not liable because they did not post the sign. LTCs are not in violation when they walk past said sign because they are on government-owned property.
Thanks. I was confused by the OP's reference to "enforceable" 30.06/30.07 signs. To me, the signs we are talking about are not enforceable. They are just a nuisance. That is, until the lessee convinces the local police to help them enforce their restrictions.
The question comes when the private entity refuses entry or asks the license holder to leave based on the fact that the license holder is carrying.

This is specifically exempted from the general 30.05 trespass law, deferring it to 30.06.

30.06 doesn't apply on government property.

So if you are asked to leave and don't - or a sign is posted, you might be arrested for trespass, go to court and everything, just for your lawyer to fight to have the charges dropped because of the 30.06/07 government property exemption.

Even without that specific scenario, unenforceable signs and/or verbal notice are an intimidation factor aimed at LTC holders. Many people would just as soon return their weapon to their vehicle, even though it's perfectly legal to carry in a place that falls in this category. The aim is to eliminate this facade of enforce-ability so that more people will not mistakenly give up their 2nd Amendment and Article 1 Section 23 (TX Constitution) rights.
Keep calm and carry.

Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.


Topic author
Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2807
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#13

Post by Russell » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:17 pm

mr1337 wrote:The question comes when the private entity refuses entry or asks the license holder to leave based on the fact that the license holder is carrying.

Bingo.

For all purposes anybody here wants to describe or argue, they are enforceable until we get law in place to stop it.

Nobody here is going to win an argument with private security nor a police officer over 30.06 signage not being technically enforceable.
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#14

Post by ScottDLS » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:20 pm

:iagree:

The issue is that many of these privately operated public venues have metal detectors and pat downs and will physically prevent your entry. Unless you are able to force yourself past, or hide the weapon from the screening, you will have to leave. Even LEO's have prevented entry in some counties, while they are fighting the AG in court. So here we are 15 months after "fines for signs" and no fine has yet been levied. The opinion from the AG has been that it doesn't apply to private entities on public property. And there is apparently no recourse if said entity physically prevents your entry to publicly owned which you otherwise have a right to enter...
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!!!!"

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Bills to fix the private entity leasing a government building loophole

#15

Post by ScottDLS » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:23 pm

Russell wrote:
mr1337 wrote:The question comes when the private entity refuses entry or asks the license holder to leave based on the fact that the license holder is carrying.

Bingo.

For all purposes anybody here wants to describe or argue, they are enforceable until we get law in place to stop it.

Nobody here is going to win an argument with private security nor a police officer over 30.06 signage not being technically enforceable.
You can try to conceal and carry past these unenforceable signs and unless someone notices, or there is screening, it shouldn't be an issue. The issue I mention in my other posts is where there is screening.
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!!!!"

Locked

Return to “2017 Texas Legislative Session”