30.06 Ruling Letters

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 40
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#61

Post by ELB » Tue May 03, 2016 1:28 pm

New ruling letters to Bell County, City of Lake Dallas, Elgin Independent School District, Glenn Heights, Kleberg County, and Woodway Police Dept were posted to the website today: https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/3006/3 ... ng-letters

As I noted earlier, they are going out in small batches. All the recent ones are dated 4/29.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 4007
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#62

Post by Jusme » Tue May 03, 2016 1:50 pm

ELB wrote:New ruling letters to Bell County, City of Lake Dallas, Elgin Independent School District, Glenn Heights, Kleberg County, and Woodway Police Dept were posted to the website today: https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/3006/3 ... ng-letters

As I noted earlier, they are going out in small batches. All the recent ones are dated 4/29.


Looks like some of these folks are getting the message, and removing signs before they are ordered to do so. The County courthouses seem to have the idea that if their commissioners or judges make a decree, then that is the law. I'm glad to see the AG is showing them that the State Legislature, and not local officials, are the ones who actually make the rules. I hope that this trend continues and that the AG continues to act on these complaints. I would still like to see how the ruling will go regarding the Ft. Worth Zoo.

:thumbs2:
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 40
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#63

Post by ELB » Tue May 03, 2016 2:02 pm

Previously I noted that the AG listed the following examples in letters to Brazos, Dallas, and McLennan counties:
- County Clerk
- County Attorney
- District Attorney
- County Tax Office
- County Constable
- Commissioners Court (altho I wonder if he has backed off on this one).

In the Kleberg County Letter the AG added the following as an example of an office not essential to the operation of the courts:
- Motor vehicle department

Also, the highest OAG complaint number I saw with the addition of the this last batch is 32.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

Scott in Houston
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:19 am
Location: Houston

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#64

Post by Scott in Houston » Tue May 03, 2016 6:00 pm

Very disappointed in the Elgin ISD ruling.
That could create the slippery slope for others wanting to claim exclusion based on being an educational institution or school district.


casp625
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#65

Post by casp625 » Tue May 03, 2016 6:05 pm

Moved

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 40
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#66

Post by ELB » Tue May 03, 2016 7:21 pm

Scott in Houston wrote:Very disappointed in the Elgin ISD ruling.
That could create the slippery slope for others wanting to claim exclusion based on being an educational institution or school district.
I find your comment a bit baffling, since I see little doubt that forbidding concealed (and now, open) carry on elementary, junior, and high school districts (without permission of the district) was exactly what the legislature intended. I don't like it, but an independent school district is precisely what the law meant. There is no slope at this point, for the AG to say otherwise would have been in direct contravention of the law. I'm even puzzled that someone went to the trouble to even make a complaint about a ISD administration building.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 40
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#67

Post by ELB » Tue May 03, 2016 7:45 pm

The score thus far:

There are now 16 Ruling Letters posted on the AG website. Thirteen (13) have been resolved on way or another.

- In nine (9) cases, the violating entity cured its violation (generally by removing improper signs) after citizen complaint but before the AG's office had finished an investigation.

- In two (2) cases the AG issued a notice of violation letter and the violating entity cured the violation, one by removing signs, the other by removing offices.

- in two (2) cases the entity challenged by complaint was found to not be in violation

- In three (3) cases a notice of violation has been issued and no resolution is posted on the website. Two of those cases are still within the 15 day window to cure the violation (or provide evidence the AG is wrong). One has substantially exceeded the 15 day window.

It's also noteworthy that two of the resolved complaints were about illegal postings of signs at a limited duration event. Officially both were resolved when the signs came down at the conclusions of the events. In one case the offending entity promised to not allow it to happen again, in the other the AG warned the entity to remain within the law in the future with such events.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

Scott in Houston
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:19 am
Location: Houston

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#68

Post by Scott in Houston » Tue May 03, 2016 8:38 pm

ELB wrote:
Scott in Houston wrote:Very disappointed in the Elgin ISD ruling.
That could create the slippery slope for others wanting to claim exclusion based on being an educational institution or school district.
I find your comment a bit baffling, since I see little doubt that forbidding concealed (and now, open) carry on elementary, junior, and high school districts (without permission of the district) was exactly what the legislature intended. I don't like it, but an independent school district is precisely what the law meant. There is no slope at this point, for the AG to say otherwise would have been in direct contravention of the law. I'm even puzzled that someone went to the trouble to even make a complaint about a ISD administration building.
Read his letter. These comments, "(opining that FERPA applies to student records at both the state and local level because "educational agency or institution" includes any public or private agency or institution that receives federal funding under an applicable education program, without regard to whether it enrolls students") "

So any agency that gets federal funding from an education program can now be considered a school? So what if a zoo gets money? Or libraries, or … ? See the slope I'm talking about?

I believe the intent of the was SCHOOLS… not all buildings supporting them like bus barns or administrative offices completely separate from a school.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4255
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#69

Post by ScottDLS » Wed May 04, 2016 8:49 am

Scott in Houston wrote:
ELB wrote:
Scott in Houston wrote:Very disappointed in the Elgin ISD ruling.
That could create the slippery slope for others wanting to claim exclusion based on being an educational institution or school district.
I find your comment a bit baffling, since I see little doubt that forbidding concealed (and now, open) carry on elementary, junior, and high school districts (without permission of the district) was exactly what the legislature intended. I don't like it, but an independent school district is precisely what the law meant. There is no slope at this point, for the AG to say otherwise would have been in direct contravention of the law. I'm even puzzled that someone went to the trouble to even make a complaint about a ISD administration building.
Read his letter. These comments, "(opining that FERPA applies to student records at both the state and local level because "educational agency or institution" includes any public or private agency or institution that receives federal funding under an applicable education program, without regard to whether it enrolls students") "

So any agency that gets federal funding from an education program can now be considered a school? So what if a zoo gets money? Or libraries, or … ? See the slope I'm talking about?

I believe the intent of the was SCHOOLS… not all buildings supporting them like bus barns or administrative offices completely separate from a school.
I don't think the opinion goes that far. When the letter refers to "applicable education program" that could mean "applicable to SCHOOLS". Like Head Start for Pre-K SCHOOLS, not daycares (which wouldn't qualify).

What I read from the opinion is that the ISD administration buildings are part of the SCHOOL system and supporting it, therefore covered. I don't agree with it, but I can see the reasoning. The Fort Worth Zoo might be off limits if it was OWNED by FWISD AND used as part of the curriculum, but just because they "educate" people there and sometimes have school activities, doesn't make them a SCHOOL. I predict they lose.
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

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 40
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#70

Post by ELB » Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:27 am

New letter out, to City of Austin about the Austin City Hall, dated 7/5. A snippet:
In this instance the citizen complaint alleges that, upon entering the Austin City Hall ("city hall"),
located at 301 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701, a uniformed security officer with authority
to act for the City of Austin (the "city") provided notice by oral communication that handgun
license holders are prohibited from entering the city hall while in possession of a handgun. The
complainant further provided photographs of the entrance to the city hall where an image warning
that handguns are prohibited within the building is posted. After reviewing the complaint, the
OAG finds the city hall is a multi-story, multipurpose building that houses the city council
chambers and the offices of the council members and other city officials, including the city's
mayor, manager, and auditor. The city hall also contains the offices of the city's finance and
economic development departments, as well as the offices of the city's law department.

In a letter to the OAG dated June 16, 2016, the city provided a response to the citizen complaint,
asserting that the city hall building "meets the statutory definition of a 'government court or offices
utilized by the court' in section 46.03(a)(3) of the Penal Code." The city further states. "[t]he
signage requirements in section 30.06 of the Penal Code do not apply in this case." Based on the
city's representations, the OAG concludes the city intends to exclude the carrying of weapons from
the entire premises of the city hall, purportedly pursuant to section 46.03(a)(3) of the Penal Code.

Upon review, however, the OAG is unable to determine which government court or office utilized
by a government court, if any, is located within the city hall building. Regardless, the city hall
houses numerous non-judicial city administrative offices that are not identified as places where
weapons are prohibited under section 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code. Section 46.03(a)(3) of
the Penal Code does not allow a political subdivision to prohibit licensed handgun holders from
entering into an entire building simply because government courts or the offices of the courts are
located in a portion of that multipurpose building. Consequently, the OAG has determined the
signs at ~e entrance of the city hall, as well as the oral communications utilized by city hall
security officers, are in violation of the Government Code.

The city has fifteen (15) days from the receipt of this written notice to cure the violation.
ETA: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... y_Hall.pdf
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

RogueUSMC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:55 pm
Location: Smith County
Contact:

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#71

Post by RogueUSMC » Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:04 am

nice!
A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
- Napoleon Bonaparte
PFC Paul E. Ison USMC 1916-2001

User avatar

joe817
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 8142
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 7:13 pm
Location: Arlington

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#72

Post by joe817 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:34 am

Excellent! :thumbs2:
Diplomacy is the Art of Letting Someone Have Your Way
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 11995
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#73

Post by C-dub » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:19 am

ScottDLS wrote:
Scott in Houston wrote:
ELB wrote:
Scott in Houston wrote:Very disappointed in the Elgin ISD ruling.
That could create the slippery slope for others wanting to claim exclusion based on being an educational institution or school district.
I find your comment a bit baffling, since I see little doubt that forbidding concealed (and now, open) carry on elementary, junior, and high school districts (without permission of the district) was exactly what the legislature intended. I don't like it, but an independent school district is precisely what the law meant. There is no slope at this point, for the AG to say otherwise would have been in direct contravention of the law. I'm even puzzled that someone went to the trouble to even make a complaint about a ISD administration building.
Read his letter. These comments, "(opining that FERPA applies to student records at both the state and local level because "educational agency or institution" includes any public or private agency or institution that receives federal funding under an applicable education program, without regard to whether it enrolls students") "

So any agency that gets federal funding from an education program can now be considered a school? So what if a zoo gets money? Or libraries, or … ? See the slope I'm talking about?

I believe the intent of the was SCHOOLS… not all buildings supporting them like bus barns or administrative offices completely separate from a school.
I don't think the opinion goes that far. When the letter refers to "applicable education program" that could mean "applicable to SCHOOLS". Like Head Start for Pre-K SCHOOLS, not daycares (which wouldn't qualify).

What I read from the opinion is that the ISD administration buildings are part of the SCHOOL system and supporting it, therefore covered. I don't agree with it, but I can see the reasoning. The Fort Worth Zoo might be off limits if it was OWNED by FWISD AND used as part of the curriculum, but just because they "educate" people there and sometimes have school activities, doesn't make them a SCHOOL. I predict they lose.
I'm going to go along with Scott in Houston on this one, but not because of the money thing. In the AG opinion it is stated that school or educational institution is not defined in 46.03, but is in other contexts. I guess that they are correct in their interpretation, but think that it needs to be better defined. An administration office for an ISD is not a school or an educational institution IMHO and might not be what the legislature had in mind when drafting and approving that part.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#74

Post by JALLEN » Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:36 pm

ELB wrote:Previously I noted that the AG listed the following examples in letters to Brazos, Dallas, and McLennan counties:
- County Clerk
- County Attorney
- District Attorney
- County Tax Office
- County Constable
- Commissioners Court (altho I wonder if he has backed off on this one).

In the Kleberg County Letter the AG added the following as an example of an office not essential to the operation of the courts:
- Motor vehicle department

Also, the highest OAG complaint number I saw with the addition of the this last batch is 32.

The complaints I filed with respect to the courthouse annexes here are No. 99 and 100, according to the letter to the County Judge I was copied on.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 40
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#75

Post by ELB » Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:49 pm

JALLEN wrote: ...
The complaints I filed with respect to the courthouse annexes here are No. 99 and 100, according to the letter to the County Judge I was copied on.
Wowser. I believe the one I just posted answered number 62.

I called the AG's office awhile back to try to get an idea of when and where they're going with the government entities that have not complied by the deadlines, got routed around to the Public Affairs person, who basically said they wouldn't comment on any court cases and if I wanted to know more I could file an open records request. hmmm. Been thinking about it, but haven't set aside the time to really do it.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”