Pasadena gun show - AG complaint filed

[Papa_Tiger]

IMO, all this means is that they will be hiring "private security" who have no reason not to enforce the house rule.

[Glockster]

I'm apparently confused. Isn't this a city owned property? If so then it shouldn't matter what whichever event organizer chooses to put in place whatever so-called house rules. My understanding is that if it is city property, then it should be a violation of law for the city to allow a contract that has any provisions in violation of the law or to allow a leaser to operate in such a manner so as to then cause the city to be in violation of the law.

[Taypo]

A little off topic but still relevant. The Culwell center in Garland (owned by the ISD) not only enforces a 30.06 but also a "Everything in a clear bag" policy.

Are they getting a pass because they're owned by the ISD, rather than the city? If so, what's to prevent all these city owned facilities from being sold to school districts to solve the gun problem?

[tlt]

I filed an AG complaint about the Fort Worth Gun Show in September. Have not heard anything back. Fort Worth claimed the event organizer posted the sign.

Got a reply from AG liasion officer Captain Gregory Lewis telling me I need to follow the chain. That is complain to Will Rogers first. I got a response from the gun show organizer. Thought I would share.

"All gun shows in Texas that I am aware of are posted 30.06.



The issue is not that the gun is open or concealed carry but that it is loaded. Once the gun is unloaded, the method of carry is not an issue. All guns including concealed carry must be unloaded prior to entry into the show. Through the purchase of a ticket, you are entering a private event into a space under the control of a private entity. As a condition of entry to that private event, all guns must be unloaded. We have additional signage to that effect at our shows."

I have demonstrated my displeasure to this policy by not attending the shows, which are typically overpriced in the first place.

As to the response, many Movie Theaters in Texas allow CHL, if they do not, I do not attend. There you purchase a ticket and enter a private venue. So what is the difference. It appears as though, it is an attempt to prevent accidental discharges gone awry. I have attended preparedness expos that are CHL friendly, because the organizers only contracted with facilities that would allow it.

So, IMO, it is the gun show organizers that are the problem.

[ELB]

I'm apparently confused. Isn't this a city owned property? If so then it shouldn't matter what whichever event organizer chooses to put in place whatever so-called house rules. My understanding is that if it is city property, then it should be a violation of law for the city to allow a contract that has any provisions in violation of the law or to allow a leaser to operate in such a manner so as to then cause the city to be in violation of the law.

[locke_n_load]

Once there is a test case, the court will rule that requiring a license holder to unload their weapon, on publicly owned/leased property, is against the intent of the carry laws in Texas. Or if we have an AG decision prior to that.
I think that's what it's going to take.

The problem is there is always a chance of such things backfiring and making an unwanted precedent. If lets say a Zoo tried doing this I think it would be a much better case more likely to turn out how you want. With it being at a gun show if it got to a court, which is no sure thing, a court could rule against you even if the law tended to agree with you.And that's even if it gets there because intent is only supposed to matter when the language is unclear. Here there is just nothing in the language of SB273 addressing the issue. So the whole thing could end up needing a legislative fix like the 30.06 issue did. Sure it may not be legal to post the signs but there is just no penalty for doing so. The 30.06 were illegal and unenforceable but they still have some up.

As far as the law goes, there is no difference in the zoo and a gun show on publicly owned/leased land. Saying that you can't enter the premises with a loaded handgun with a license is the same as posting 30.06/30.07 or verbally asking patrons to leave. That is unenforceable.
I'm waiting for this to go to the AG so we can shut up these vendors who think they can outskirt the law with logistics.

[dhoobler]

I'm apparently confused. Isn't this a city owned property? If so then it shouldn't matter what whichever event organizer chooses to put in place whatever so-called house rules. My understanding is that if it is city property, then it should be a violation of law for the city to allow a contract that has any provisions in violation of the law or to allow a leaser to operate in such a manner so as to then cause the city to be in violation of the law.

You and I understand the law the same way. If a private entity can place a 30.06 sign on government owned property, then the City of Houston would not have asked the zoo to take down their signs.

The city cannot enact gun control that is more stringent than the state. The preemption law prohibits that. I can't imagine that a private entity can supersede state law.

[EEllis]

Anyone have access to the Fort Worth PD off duty regs? I'd be interested if there is a "house rules" provision in there.

It doesn't need to be in the Regs because it is simply not allowed for any Texas Peace Officer. By doing so they are giving the impression that such rule is the law and it's not. While it may not be a criminal offence it has been well established in Texas that there can and have been civil penalties for doing so.

[EEllis]

I'm apparently confused. Isn't this a city owned property? If so then it shouldn't matter what whichever event organizer chooses to put in place whatever so-called house rules. My understanding is that if it is city property, then it should be a violation of law for the city to allow a contract that has any provisions in violation of the law or to allow a leaser to operate in such a manner so as to then cause the city to be in violation of the law.

If there are no penalties then how do you make a city comply? I'm sure the contract is just silent on the subject thus it's not a violation by the lessee and with no penalty to the City if they don't care then why should they do anything about it.

[EEllis]

A little off topic but still relevant. The Culwell center in Garland (owned by the ISD) not only enforces a 30.06 but also a "Everything in a clear bag" policy.

Are they getting a pass because they're owned by the ISD, rather than the city? If so, what's to prevent all these city owned facilities from being sold to school districts to solve the gun problem?

If it's not connected to a school or having a school event I don't think they legally can. I think you could file a AG complaint because ISD's are not exempt AFAIK. Clear bag is just a house rule and a non issue. They can say zero bags at all if they want.

[EEllis]

As far as the law goes, there is no difference in the zoo and a gun show on publicly owned/leased land. Saying that you can't enter the premises with a loaded handgun with a license is the same as posting 30.06/30.07 or verbally asking patrons to leave. That is unenforceable.
I'm waiting for this to go to the AG so we can shut up these vendors who think they can outskirt the law with logistics.

The AG is a bit different because it's just opinion. With a court if you lose, and you could lose even if the law is on your side, then precedent gets involved and you can make the situation less favorable. My statement was just saying that it's a idea that should be considered. Is it better to allow a court to make a decision that could have greater negative effects if they decide against you, or is lobbying for changes to the law a better option.

[ScottDLS]

As far as the law goes, there is no difference in the zoo and a gun show on publicly owned/leased land. Saying that you can't enter the premises with a loaded handgun with a license is the same as posting 30.06/30.07 or verbally asking patrons to leave. That is unenforceable.
I'm waiting for this to go to the AG so we can shut up these vendors who think they can outskirt the law with logistics.

The AG is a bit different because it's just opinion. With a court if you lose, and you could lose even if the law is on your side, then precedent gets involved and you can make the situation less favorable. My statement was just saying that it's a idea that should be considered. Is it better to allow a court to make a decision that could have greater negative effects if they decide against you, or is lobbying for changes to the law a better option.

Technically with a court decision it is only binding on that case unless held at the appellate level. That said, other Texas courts will often look to previous cases for guidance. I like to think that if the law is clearly on our side, or if the AG has rendered an opinion, that the courts would respect this. I guess if the cities keep this up, my plan B would be to carry a pair of wire clippers and buy some ammo at the show, then reload (discretely).

[dhoobler]

IMO, all this means is that they will be hiring "private security" who have no reason not to enforce the house rule.

Private security has no authority to enforce a law. The only thing they could do is play bouncer and physically remove you. That begs a question. Does a private individual have the right/authority to physically remove you from public property?

[locke_n_load]

IMO, all this means is that they will be hiring "private security" who have no reason not to enforce the house rule.

Private security has no authority to enforce a law. The only thing they could do is play bouncer and physically remove you. That begs a question. Does a private individual have the right/authority to physically remove you from public property?

Question of the day: can a private business on public property deny service anyone they want, if its not gender, racial, etc.?

[Papa_Tiger]

IMO, all this means is that they will be hiring "private security" who have no reason not to enforce the house rule.

Private security has no authority to enforce a law. The only thing they could do is play bouncer and physically remove you. That begs a question. Does a private individual have the right/authority to physically remove you from public property?

At that point they aren't enforcing the law. They have found that you have a loaded, concealed handgun and are enforcing the house rule (and loophole pointed out earlier) that all firearms entering the premises need to be unloaded and peace-tied. It does not prevent you as a CHL holder from entering the premises unless you abide by their house rule.

Do I think the behavior meets the intent of the law? Absolutely not.

Do I think that the law needs to be clarified to reduce the places that are off limits to a CHL holder including places that cannot legally post a 30.06 sign such as gun shows on public property? Absolutely.