TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote:

casp625 wrote:So... all licensed child care centers are statutorily off limits since they are a school? Does this include daycares or does child care = daycare?

I danced with this problem earlier this year. In January, the CPS sent out emails to many (all?) licensed preschool locations stating that Open Carry did not change anything and that carry of licensed handguns had always been prohibited. They went into detail about 30.06 and 30.07. I wrote back to them asking their authority to issue the restriction and they quoted a part of the Administrative code. I don't pretend to understand that. The pre-school that I was working with was part of a church and the church did not want to post any signs. Since CPS can audit the pre-school and the license could be suspended for non-compliance (they have a myriad of reasons including not deep enough mulch around playground equipment), the church wrote a statement in to the handbook that the parents must sign, quoting the CPS language. The church was not equipped or willing to contest the CPS wording.

Given the current situation with CPS, I'm hoping that the 2017 Legislature can bring some sanity to their operation.

So basically child care centers are only off-limits if they post 30.06/07 or are in an otherwise prohibited location. Administrative code only applies to the child care facility, not license holders.

Remember that in order to receive 30.06/07 notice, any written communication must be as described in the statute. If the CPS wording doesn't match that, it's not enforceable. (However, verbal notice does not require any specific wording.)

The AG has made a big jump here

"Upon review, the OAG finds the pre-school is exclusively owned and operated by a private party
and is not operated by the city. The OAG concludes a reviewing court would likely find that a
licensed child-care facility is a "school or educational institution" for purposes of section
46.03(a)(l) of the Penal Code. Accordingly, a handgun license holder is prohibited from
possessing a firearm on the physical premises of the pre-school, consisting of those rooms in the
community center that are operated solely as a pre-school and to which the pre-school has an
exclusive right of use."

This is not written into law but his interpretation. Wow.

Gotta pass 560. Paxton is turning out to be a little too left on these decisions.

mr1337 wrote:
So basically child care centers are only off-limits if they post 30.06/07 or are in an otherwise prohibited location. Administrative code only applies to the child care facility, not license holders.

Remember that in order to receive 30.06/07 notice, any written communication must be as described in the statute. If the CPS wording doesn't match that, it's not enforceable. (However, verbal notice does not require any specific wording.)

The email that I saw from CPS went into the detail of 30.06 and 30.07 notification including the signs. The implied threat is that if the hosting organization for the pre-school doesn't "comply" with the CPS requirements for the license, the license is revoked. That would mean that the church could no longer host the pre-school. From talking to the leaders in charge of the pre-school, the no-gun policy is only one of many things for which the license could be revoked.

All that said, the CPS directives on firearms seem a lot like the current ban on some types of firearms and magazines in Connecticut. The whole situation hinges on the level of enforcement. I toured several of the churches in our area with pre-schools and none of them had 30.06 and 30.07 signs up. I suspect that it will take an overt act by CPS against one church sponsored (or other) pre-school to change that. The email went into detail about the pre-schools that are held in someone's home and the requirements for firearms there. I've looked at the commercial, stand-alone pre-school/child care facilities in this area and found none of them posted externally either. They might have signs behind their locked doors that I couldn't see, however.

I recommended that the church use the exact CPS wording from the email to include in the pre-school parent handbook because I understood that it isn't enforceable. But a good argument could be made that the church is complying with the CPS directive since it is their exact wording. There is no practical way for the church to put up and take down TPC type signage on the ends of the pre-school day. While the pre-school is physically separated and locked during operation, the teachers take the students to other parts of the church facility on occasion and full compliance would require the church and all of its 9 entrances to be posted. The church leaders have prohibited OC but are handling it with written notice passed out to someone with a visible gun rather than posting signs as some churches have done. There is no current desire by the church leaders to post 30.06 signs on the facility.

Three more Ruling Letters have been posted:

12/22/16 Universal City Municipal Building, found in violation, enforcement abated until court case is settled
12/22/16 Plano Sports Authority StarCenter, no violation, government land leased to private non-profit
12/22/16 Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, no violation, government land leased to private non-profit


I wonder if the judge in the case that the AG has filed against Austin has parked the case waiting to see if the Legislature will do anything about the court house/multi purpose building issue?

Three new Ruling Letters were issued on 15 August 2017:

Texas Health & Human Services Commission - Broadmoor Building OAG Complaint No. 44

By correspondence dated March 7, 2016, Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support
Services Rolando Garza provided the OAG with a response to the complaint on behalf of HHSC.
HHSC's response states the Texas Facilities Commission ("TFC") leases the Broadmoor building
on behalf of HHSC, and neither HHSC nor TFC posted the signage referenced in the citizen
complaint nor requested that the signage be posted. HHSC's correspondence further indicates the
landlord of the property intends to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns throughout the
property and the buildings located therein.

After review, the OAG determines the 30.06 signs at issue were posted by the landlord of the
property upon which the Broadmoor building is located, and were not posted by or at the request
of HHSC. Further, a reviewing court would likely conclude that under existing law the landlord
of this property is not a political subdivision of the state for purposes of section 41 l.209(a) of the
Government Code. Accordingly, the OAG finds signage posted at the entrances to property upon
which the Broadmoor building is located are not in violation of section 411.209 of the Government
Code. The OAG is closing this complaint.

Johnson City City Hall OAG Complaint No. 40

The Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") received a citizen complaint, pursuant to section
411.209 of the Government Code, concerning the wrongful exclusion of handgun license holders
from the Johnson City City Hall building. While reviewing this complaint, the OAG received
correspondence from City Attorney Elizabeth Elleson stating the signage upon which the
complaint is based is posted outside the entrance of a room that serves as the municipal courtroom
and as the city council chambers during specific days and times of the month. Ms. Elleson further
informs the OAG that the signs are visible only when court is in session or when a city council
meeting is occurring, and are covered at all other times. Based on this representation, the OAG
concludes Johnson City's voluntary compliance has resolved the issue. Therefore, the OAG is
closing this complaint.

Killeen Police Department OAG Complaint Nos. 21, 68

Upon review, the OAG finds the city may prohibit a handgun license holder who is carrying a
handgun from entering onto the premises of the portion of the headquarters building constituting
a correctional facility, pursuant to section 46.035(b)(3) of the Penal Code. However, section
46.035(b)(3) does not allow a political subdivision to prohibit licensed handgun holders from
entering an entire building simply because a correctional facility located in a portion of a dual-use
facility. Consequently, the OAG has determined the sign at the entrance of the headquarters
building is in violation of the Government Code.

The city has fifteen (15) days from the receipt of this written notice to cure the violation.

Time has surely expired for the Killeen PD to come into compliance with the law. If there are any Killeenites (Killeenians?) here and want something to do, would be interested if the KPD has been on the ball or not.

Lynyrd wrote:
Amazing! The AG's office has taken some strong stances against some of the county governments. It seems as if some of the criticism against Mr. Paxton was out of place. He may be moving slow, but at least he is giving notice. I'll bet there will be more to come out of all this dust.

A year later, the progress of the lawsuits tells which side was on target.

So I finally found a place online where I can check the status of the Attorney General's lawsuit against the City of Austin over their signs on City Hall.

The results made available don't tell me much. From what I can gather, this is in the judge's hands for a decision. The case is in the 53rd Judicial District of Travis County, and the judge is Scott H. Jenkins.

It appears to me (and I am reading a lot into the very little I can read) that both plaintiff (AG) and defendant (Austin) have moved for summary judgment in their respective favors; some responses have to each have flowed to the court; a hearing was held on 31 Aug 17; no further information. I assume this means it is now up to the judge to make a decision on the motions and either grant one of the motions for summary judgment or ask for further argument in court.

If you want to see for yourself, here is the online site: https://www.traviscountytx.gov/district ... nformation

You will need the Cause Number: D-1-GN-16-003340

You will get a list of dates and events in very cryptic form. I believe the acronym "PL" means "Plaintiff", "DF" means "Defendant", "MTN" means "Motion," "NTC" means something like "Notice/Notification to the Court", and beyond that you are on your own.

I called the 53rd District Court Clerk's office. Nothing has happened since August. Nothing scheduled, no hearings or anything else. I guess it is up to the judge to whenever he gets around to deciding.

Been sitting in the "in" box for awhile.

A further thought about signs and courts and process and fines:

I get the impression there are probably a number of government buildings in Texas that prohibit licensed carry in the entire building because the contains a judicial or commissioners court in addition to a number of non-court offices. The recent thread on the Fayette County Court House for example.

I also gather that complaints about these buildings have tapered off, probably because the issue is in limbo while the judge in the 53rd district in Travis County mulls- or sits on - the Attorney General's case against the City of Austin. The OAG has issued letters notifying several local governments that they are in violation of the law with respect to prohibiting licensed carry in an entire government building just because it has a couple court offices in it, but has told them he is not taking them to court until the Austin and Waller County cases are settled.

Thus I expect most people are thinking "why bother" until those cases are indeed finalized.

However, depending on how much you like to see your local government squeal, there may be a reason to go ahead and file a complaint locally, and then sending it to the OAG when it is rejected (with the presumption that the OAG will issue a violation letter).

It appears to me that the fines that local governments have to pay for violating the sign law start accruing from the 16th day after that local government receives a letter of violation from the OAG. That fine is a minimum of $1000 per day. That means, for example, that if Austin ultimately loses, they are on the hook for a fine that started accruing on approximately 05 July 2016 plus 16 days, or about 21 July 2016. Thus, as of this post, the potential find accrued is a minimum of $525,000. Given that whichever way the trial court decides the matter is likely to be appealed to the next level and possibly then to the Texas SCOTUS, it could be awhile until it is finally decided...and that would be pretty big fine even for Austin's budget.

Thus if you make the complaint and your local government gets a letter of violation, the meter starts running. And it might run awhile.

I think the OAG would still have to take the local government to court to get a fine enforced, but a substantial fine would probably make it interesting for them. And the locals would be sweating bullets over it. Of course if it is your local government it is your local tax dollars, but since those dollars are already out of your pocket, and they would be going to the state versus the local government, then maybe you don't care. Up to you.

Here's an excerpt from the letter of violation issued to the City of Austin where the OAG explains the fines they are facing:

Code. Section 4 l l .209(b) of the Government Code authorizes the court to assess civil penalties
in the amount of:

• Not less than $1,000 and not more than $1,500 for the first violation; and

• Not less than $10,000 and not more than $10,500 for the second or a subsequent violation.

Be advised that each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate violation. TEX. Gov'T
CODE§ 41 l.209(c). Accordingly, beginning on the sixteenth (16th) day following the receipt of
this written notice the city may be liable for a proposed maximum penalty of $1,500 for each day
the city remains in violation, as well as any reasonable expenses incurred by the Attorney General
in obtaining relief under section 4 l l .209(g) of the Government Code.

This is all quite interesting and will probably wind up at the Supreme Court of Texas.

Many courthouses, "justice centers", county offices, and "annexes" have differing but related offices and departments located in the same building. I can think of Adult Probation, County and District Clerks Offices, Treasurers Offices, Tax Offices and on and on. I think a court would argue that many of those offices and departments are necessary to its day to day function.

Have no idea what the eventual "rule of law" will be or how it will be applied but I think the courts will protect themselves and if I had to guess will give great deference to security with more, not less, of buildings off-limits to firearms. Stay tuned.

The judge taking an eternity to decide seems like he's simply not wanting to rule either way, but justice delayed is justice denied!

http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-ne ... -city-hall

The city claims that guns aren't allowed at City Hall because community court and teen court are held there on occassion. The judge agreed with the city that the gun ban should include the entire building not just the part where court is held.

“That means that basically a government could designate a room way off in the corner of the building as a court and then say 'ah ha we have a court therefore our entire building is off-limits,’” he said

But the judge agreed with some other arguments the Attorney General made -- for example the ban should only be in effect on the days court is held.