AT&T Stadium for Non-Scholastic/Non-Professional Event

[RoyGBiv]

It has been my understanding that if a govt entity leased property to a third party, like a concert promoter, that third party could post the property.

Maybe that is just the excuse they want to give us.

That is true but the sign would still be unenforceable. In the case of a concert I’m not sure what security would do. How would they bar you from entering? Surely they would utilize off duty and perhaps on duty LEO to enforce it. Until someone is prevented from entering the stadium due to carrying while licensed and then they follow up with the AG and possibly their own lawsuit against the city, security company and promoter nothing will change. Kind of late in the game but perhaps a call to the PD to discuss the law and what they will do if called would help ease your entry. If they can be educated before the fact and put out memos/training for officers working there it would greatly help your cause. Most likely if they’re willing to follow the law it’s going to take awhile to get things rolling on their end.

The AG has already issued opinions on similar situations. (see last paragraph in each PDF)
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... istory.pdf
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... center.pdf

Bottom line... The law is unclear whether a private, 3rd-party operator of a government-owned facility can prohibit license holders from carrying. In practice, they do. But what, if any, remedy is available to license holders is unclear. According to the AG opinion, the 3rd-party CAN post the premises, the owning government entity cannot be held responsible/liable for the signage, but the exclusion of license holders from the premises while carrying still needs to be addressed by the legislature.

There has been some discussion here (can't find it now) that a license holder could not be successfully prosecuted (under 30.06/07) for carrying past those signs (other section 46 violations notwithstanding), but I don't believe there has been a test case yet.

This is my OPINION. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

[Soccerdad1995]

It has been my understanding that if a govt entity leased property to a third party, like a concert promoter, that third party could post the property.

Maybe that is just the excuse they want to give us.

That is true but the sign would still be unenforceable. In the case of a concert I’m not sure what security would do. How would they bar you from entering? Surely they would utilize off duty and perhaps on duty LEO to enforce it. Until someone is prevented from entering the stadium due to carrying while licensed and then they follow up with the AG and possibly their own lawsuit against the city, security company and promoter nothing will change. Kind of late in the game but perhaps a call to the PD to discuss the law and what they will do if called would help ease your entry. If they can be educated before the fact and put out memos/training for officers working there it would greatly help your cause. Most likely if they’re willing to follow the law it’s going to take awhile to get things rolling on their end.

The AG has already issued opinions on similar situations. (see last paragraph in each PDF)
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... istory.pdf
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... center.pdf

Bottom line... The law is unclear whether a private, 3rd-party operator of a government-owned facility can prohibit license holders from carrying. In practice, they do. But what, if any, remedy is available to license holders is unclear. According to the AG opinion, the 3rd-party CAN post the premises, the owning government entity cannot be held responsible/liable for the signage, but the exclusion of license holders from the premises while carrying still needs to be addressed by the legislature.

There has been some discussion here (can't find it now) that a license holder could not be successfully prosecuted (under 30.06/07) for carrying past those signs (other section 46 violations notwithstanding), but I don't believe there has been a test case yet.

This is my OPINION. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

More to the point, if LE officers (on or off duty) prevented your entrance, arrested you, or the DA charged you, then that blows the cities claim of being an "innocent bystander" out of the water. In all of these cases, city employees would be actively participating in the improper exclusion of an LTC holder.

Broadly speaking, I think we need to hold our city and county governments to a higher standard here. They are trying to get by on a technicality by saying "hey, we aren't the ones improperly excluding you, so we are innocent." How about actually having a duty to ensure that citizen's civil rights are not infringed instead of just playing Barney Fife on the sidelines. If I am improperly denied entry to a government owned facility because of my race, sex, sexual orientation, age, or my legally carried handgun, then I should be able to call 911 and have local LE actively show up to help enforce my civil rights. And the government entity should revoke the lease for repeated violations.

[ScottDLS]

It has been my understanding that if a govt entity leased property to a third party, like a concert promoter, that third party could post the property.

Maybe that is just the excuse they want to give us.

That is true but the sign would still be unenforceable. In the case of a concert I’m not sure what security would do. How would they bar you from entering? Surely they would utilize off duty and perhaps on duty LEO to enforce it. Until someone is prevented from entering the stadium due to carrying while licensed and then they follow up with the AG and possibly their own lawsuit against the city, security company and promoter nothing will change. Kind of late in the game but perhaps a call to the PD to discuss the law and what they will do if called would help ease your entry. If they can be educated before the fact and put out memos/training for officers working there it would greatly help your cause. Most likely if they’re willing to follow the law it’s going to take awhile to get things rolling on their end.

The AG has already issued opinions on similar situations. (see last paragraph in each PDF)
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... istory.pdf
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... center.pdf

Bottom line... The law is unclear whether a private, 3rd-party operator of a government-owned facility can prohibit license holders from carrying. In practice, they do. But what, if any, remedy is available to license holders is unclear. According to the AG opinion, the 3rd-party CAN post the premises, the owning government entity cannot be held responsible/liable for the signage, but the exclusion of license holders from the premises while carrying still needs to be addressed by the legislature.

There has been some discussion here (can't find it now) that a license holder could not be successfully prosecuted (under 30.06/07) for carrying past those signs (other section 46 violations notwithstanding), but I don't believe there has been a test case yet.

This is my OPINION. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

In January 2016 I tried to become the "test case" at ATT Stadium for a non-scholastic, non-professional event. I was physically prevented from entry by the private security. Unless I was going to fight them or figure out how to sneak in and THEN get approached by police, I don't know how once could prove this out. The other occasions where I've carried have been at the Frisco Dr Pepper center where they were posted but no screening, so I carried anyway.

[der Teufel]

The legal technicalities regarding this issue are way beyond me, but I can imagine a scenario where off-duty police or private security prevent someone from entering the facility, and the city still maintains that they are not responsible. The police might also point out that the officers involved were off-duty and therefore not acting as public officials. Ergo, not actionable.

It seems this is a technicality that will require legislative actions to resolve.
--

[roadkill]

The legal technicalities regarding this issue are way beyond me, but I can imagine a scenario where off-duty police or private security prevent someone from entering the facility, and the city still maintains that they are not responsible. The police might also point out that the officers involved were off-duty and therefore not acting as public officials. Ergo, not actionable.

It seems this is a technicality that will require legislative actions to resolve.
--

The city can’t claim off duty no responsibility for off duty officers. First they are in uniform therefore representing the city. Second all contracts for off duty work are run through the PD. I went through this with the Nueces County Appraisal District and the off duty CCPD officers there. It took me about 9 months but the PD became educated enough on the 06/07 signage and public buildings to where they weren’t wanting to provide security there without a clear written plan that followed the law. They came back this year and after contacting them about no plan in place I was told the CCPD came to a verbal agreement with NCAD that the officers would only be providing a “presence” and not escorting LTC’s or telling them to carry there. There is hope but it’s going to take time and dedication to get the PD to follow the law. Once you get the PD on board they can talk with the private security company.

[Soccerdad1995]

The legal technicalities regarding this issue are way beyond me, but I can imagine a scenario where off-duty police or private security prevent someone from entering the facility, and the city still maintains that they are not responsible. The police might also point out that the officers involved were off-duty and therefore not acting as public officials. Ergo, not actionable.

It seems this is a technicality that will require legislative actions to resolve.
--

In this situation, it would be great if you could call 911 and have the officers actually insist that your civil rights are protected, and that you are allowed to enter the government facility that you, as a member of the public, own. At a minimum, the government should be required to include a clause in any lease agreement that mandates lessee's do not violate the civil rights of any citizens who have paid to attend an event.

Compare this to a situation where off duty cops are violating any other civil rights. Say that they are working security at a concert and are physically preventing any African American's from entering. Do we honestly believe the city would just stick their head in the sand and say "hey, they weren't on duty, so we have no control over them"?

When it comes to protecting civil rights, the present situation is like Animal Farm. We are all equal. Some are just more equal than others.

[Soccerdad1995]

In January 2016 I tried to become the "test case" at ATT Stadium for a non-scholastic, non-professional event. I was physically prevented from entry by the private security. Unless I was going to fight them or figure out how to sneak in and THEN get approached by police, I don't know how once could prove this out. The other occasions where I've carried have been at the Frisco Dr Pepper center where they were posted but no screening, so I carried anyway.

It definitely would be an uncomfortable situation, but the only scenario I could see would be you trying to walk past the guards, the guards grabbing you, and you calling 911 to file assault charges. All the while not giving them reason to claim that you were disturbing the peace, or some such. Like I said, difficult and definitely uncomfortable.

[Grundy1133]

Well I attended and there were NO 30.06 30.07 signs that were visible to me. however they have you enter metal detectors and then you are wanded as you enter. they're very strict too. I had a pair of travel chopsticks that are made of metal and they weren't gonna let me take them in. (i had forgotten i had them in my pocket) no big deal i told them i could just put them back in my car but the guy's supervisor said not to worry about it. which i find amusing because if they had been wooden who would have known? the metal wand wouldnt have detected them and i would have entered with a "deadly weapon" or whatever else they wanna call it. chopsticks are chopsticks whether theyre made of metal or wood or plastic. I think it's ridiculous honestly. lol. i guess it's to preserve the false sense of security they want to maintain... longest 6 hours ever. I felt naked the whole time i was there and slightly uneasy just knowing that if something happened my only option was to hide in the corner.