FOIA Request Wording Re:30.06e (Govt Entity)

[Keith B]

As someone who processes Open Records requests for a living, I can tell you that your request is a non-starter. You have the following issues at least:

1. The Tx PIA only applies to DOCUMENTS that are ALREADY in existence. The way your request is worded, you are not asking for documents, just information. Unless the gov. entities you are submitting requests to already have lists of the info you are looking for drawn up, you are going to get a nice letter saying that they have no documents responsive to your request.
2. Even if you reworded your request to ask for the documents that contain the info you are seeking, you are just going to get a wad of unorganized deeds, contracts, reports, etc. Additionally, on a request a broad as yours, you would probably be required to prepay the estimated costs of the gov. entity in preparing and copying the info (10 cents per copy and $15 per man hour spent retrieving, searching, and copying files. The gov. entity can also charge you the actual personnel costs if the person doing the work makes more than $15 an hour) On this type of request, that could easily reach a few thousand dollars for just one medium to large gov. entity.

Honestly, I don't think there is any way you can succeed with this request under the PIA, it's going to be too easy to trip you up on a technicality or justify prohibitive charges. JMHO, FWIW

This is an arduous task and the actual benefits reaped from it, IMO. would be small. Time is better spent getting folks to understand legal carry locations, proper signage, and trying to educate those that don't understand the difference.

[couzin]

I genuinely do not understand the responses I'm receiving.

Why? You are getting pro comments and comments that question exactly what you are trying to achieve. Don't get all riled up because some disagrees with you. Your actions are yours alone to undertake if you feel you are correct. Like in Buddhism, you should just leap, and build wings on the way down. Nobody has poo-pooed the idea to jump - just asking "why"?

My thought process is that there is a list of locations on which CHL holders have a legal right to carry and yet a sizable number of these locations post invalid 30.06 signs saying you are restricted from carrying there.

Again - if it is an "invalid" 30.06 - why worry about it. You are perfectly legal. Pointing out to someone that they have the wrong sign will result in a new legal sign (IMHO). If you already know of this "sizable number" of places where it is legal under the Statutes to carry concealed, and they are posted with invalid signs - can you post them here on TXCHL Forum so they can be talked (badly, harumph, harumph) about? Can I get a 'harumph' on that...??

[Hoi Polloi]

I was trying to format a multi-quote response, but it isn't working and I need to go for the afternoon so I am adding this one for now.

I'm not at all riled or upset. Confused and wanting to talk more is all. 1981's response with the details on how it will be processed is extremely helpful and puts things into much better perspective for me. Thank you! It really shows the importance of getting the law cleaned up in the next legislative session to me.

[Cobra Medic]

Let's suppose you get these responses. What's next?

Building A is posted because the school district has offices there.

Building B is posted because there are court offices in the building.

Building C is posted because the city council meets there.

Building D is posted because the city doesn't own the building.

[Hoi Polloi]

Let's suppose you get these responses. What's next?

Building A is posted because the school district has offices there.

Building B is posted because there are court offices in the building.

Building C is posted because the city council meets there.

Building D is posted because the city doesn't own the building.

Nah, it would be like the 30.06 site, but in reverse. It would list known "safe" zones for carrying.

Buildings E, F, G, H, I , J, K, and L are governmental buildings without courts, schools, etc and you can carry there. If one of them has a 30.06 sign, it is invalid.
Buildings M, N, O, P, and Q are used as polling locations so you can't carry there during voting, but you can carry there the rest of the time.
Buildings R, S, and T are often used for professional sporting events so you can't carry there if one is going on, but you can carry there outside those times.

That sort of thing was what I was thinking. Get rid of the confusion and the need to consult county appraisal districts and property deeds and all this other work that the CHL holder must currently undertake before going to pay his water bill because he can't trust the posted signs. I think it is quite telling that it is predicted that undertaking that same research would be so burdensome to a governmental agency that it is cost and time prohibitive. If they can't be expected to have a paid professional do that research, expecting the average citizen to before he can use his legal rights is ridiculous.

My goal was to try to work with the current statutes to bring order and understanding out of the chaotic situation the legislature put the CHL community in, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way to do that is to get legislative change of the statutes themselves. How hard is it to expect a legal posted notice to mean what it says and say what it means? We don't have to second-guess stop signs or 51% signs. I am really thinking the statute concerning the posting of the sign should add that it is an exception to enforcement if the posted sign does not meet ALL of the statutory criteria and that it should add some sort of criteria for the legal posting of 30.06 signs such that all of them posted are valid or able to be removed.

[baldeagle]

That sort of thing was what I was thinking. Get rid of the confusion and the need to consult county appraisal districts and property deeds and all this other work that the CHL holder must currently undertake before going to pay his water bill because he can't trust the posted signs. I think it is quite telling that it is predicted that undertaking that same research would be so burdensome to a governmental agency that it is cost and time prohibitive. If they can't be expected to have a paid professional do that research, expecting the average citizen to before he can use his legal rights is ridiculous.

Bingo! You just hit the nail directly on its head. While it's helpful to know that an invalid sign doesn't prohibit one from carrying, the complexities of carrying in places that have valid 30.06 signs because they're not allowed to prevent you from carrying makes complying with the law labyrinthine, to put it mildly. Of course, clarity and the law are often not possible, but there's something to be said for having as much clarity as is politically possible.

If a store or restaurant is posting an invalid sign, then you can legally carry there. But do you really want to? After all, their intent is pretty clear, and if you are "outed", they're going to ask you to leave anyway. Maybe it's time to promote the idea that I often see spoken of here; that gun free zones are target rich environments. If we change the public's mind on that, then the whole game changes. People will begin asking why vendors think so little of their customers that they want to expose them to an elevated risk of attack and deny them the ability to even defend themselves and their families.

IOW, let's start thinking of shifting the burden. Rather than us having to justify carrying, let's get the locations that prevent it to justify putting their customers at risk. Rather than us having to constantly think (and worry) about every location we go to, memorize signage requirements and surveil every location for valid signs before entering and figure out which buildings are owned by a governmental entity and therefore not allowed to post 30.06 signs anyway, why not shift the burden to the people posting the signs? Perhaps the law should read unless a 30.06 sign is properly posted and configured CHL holders may enter and the location cannot prevent them from carrying.

I mean no offense, but the idea that we should not stir things up because some might then post valid signs seems rather backwards to me. After all, carrying is our right. If you want to deny me my rights, you'd better be able to justify it, or you will lose business quickly. I don't know about you, but I can't think of a reason why I shouldn't be able to carry anywhere I want. Companies that deny American citizens their Constitutional rights should be though of as backward, not safety conscious.

There was a time in this country when private businesses could deny service to blacks. Today we all know that is wrong. Shouldn't Americans think the same way about the 2A?

[srothstein]

I also agree with 1981 that you would get a response that says something like "We are in possession of no documents that would be responsive to your request." You are asking for information instead of lists.

I started to tell you you would have to request any deeds or leases that apply, but I realized there is an easier way.

Instead of dealing with the city, contact your county appraisal district. By law, they are required to have an appraisal card for each property in the county. Send them an open records request for all the appraisal card of all property that is 100% exempt from taxation. It will probably cost you money as there might be a large number of these cards, but the results should be interesting. You would get all city, county, and school district property. You would also get all of the unusual government agencies (what we call special purpose districts) like the public hospital district, the water district, crime control district, etc. You would also get any charities that are tax exempt, like churches. Then you would get some you could discard, such as the homes of any 100% disabled veterans.

This will not give you the addresses of any property the city leases instead of owns. Nor will it tell you which buildings are courthouses. But it would give you a heck of a start on your project. Then if you find a building in the database that is owned by any governmental agency that has a sign posting no guns, either legal or otherwise, you can send a request to that government agency. This time you ask them for any documents that relate to the decision to post the sign, including but not limited to any governmental body (city council county commissioners, etc.) discussions and meeting minutes, any orders from the city manager to maintenance, etc. This will also give you a view into the logic they used so you can approach your representative and ask him to introduce a motion to remove the signs. You would know what to argue besides the lack of enforceability.

[3dfxMM]

We don't have to second-guess stop signs or 51% signs.

I'll agree on the stop signs, but quite a few businesses put up invalid 51% signs.

[Keith B]

We don't have to second-guess stop signs or 51% signs.

I'll agree on the stop signs, but quite a few businesses put up invalid 51% signs.

Correct, there are several cases of businesses improperly posting a 51% sign when they should really have the unlicensed sign (or they have both posted, so you don't know which one is correct.) Some places are easy to tell, others not so easy. If in doubt, check the TABC database and see if they have an FB (Food and Beverage) license. If so, then they are NOT 51%, not matter what signs they have. If the FB is not listed, then the TABC office can tell you 100% if you call them. Otherwise, just check the businesses liquor license for SIGN=RED (51%) or SIGN=BLUE (non-51%) (Make sure to disarm until you know for sure

[jester]

Aren't there also stop signs that don't have the force of law?

[Keith B]

Aren't there also stop signs that don't have the force of law?

Only when posted on private property or posted elsewhere by someone without authority. Otherwise, unless there is something else in Texas law I am unaware of they are enforceable.

[1981]

The CAD idea is a good one. To make it easier/less expensive, you should simply request all property data sheets for each government entity in the county, and list them out, i.e. City, county, state of Texas, etc. Also, many have their websites set up to search by owner. You can just type in the name of the county or city (i.e. Travis or Harris) and that will get you most of them. If you get it off the website it won't cost you anything and you won't have to file an open records request. The list of tax exempt properties would include every church, shelter, and charity building in the county, so you probably won't want to be that broad.

[Dragonfighter]

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish, but the Freedom of Information Act applies to documents controlled by the Federal Government. CHL 30.06 postings are only relevant in Texas.

Weeeellll, yes and no. The "FOIA" is federal but states, counties and local governments are mandated to adopt similar laws or by-laws. So in affect FOIA does apply to state and city governments. For instance, if a person makes a "freedom of information" and or "open records" request to the City of Dallas, they have to comply. How long they take is often discretionary and if there is a privacy or HIPPA conflict, then any identifying or sensitive information; it can and must be redacted.

I found this out while assisting that office while on light duty.

[dicion]

Aren't there also stop signs that don't have the force of law?

Only when posted on private property or posted elsewhere by someone without authority. Otherwise, unless there is something else in Texas law I am unaware of they are enforceable.

Most people don't realize this, but the above means that any traffic signage in a private parking lot (like a mall, shopping center, grocery store) are unenforceable.

Also ones that do not meet MUTCD (Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices) Requirements on size(most are the correct size nowadays) and height are unenforceable.
I wouldn't try arguing it with the officer giving you the ticket, but take it to court. You'll need documented evidence (pictures, measurements) of sign location, size, and height from the roadway, as well as the requirements for roadway signs as spelled out in the MUTCD.
(Basically, the MUTCD Specifies what a stop sign IS, and if it doesn't meet it's requirements, it's not a valid stop sign, therefore, unenforceable)

Also, don't tell anyone I told you this, but highway on-ramp metering signals are also unenforceable. The yellow time on them is never long enough. Needs to be a minimum of 3 seconds

Just thought I'd throw this in ;)

[WildBill]

Basically, the MUTCD Specifies what a stop sign IS, and if it doesn't meet it's requirements, it's not a valid stop sign, therefore, unenforceable

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be the same variation in STOP signs as in gun buster signs.