TexasCHLforum.com

Frankie:

I just thought of one thing that may make a difference to your argument in this specific case. We all agree the property is owned by the city and therefore cannot be posted. The question is if a lessee can post. I would have to see the contract to determine for sure, but I would bet the center is not actually leased out. The center is operated by a company as an agent for the city. They are just contract employees at that point and cannot have any more rights than the employer/property owner.

So, when there is an event there, is the property leased out like you think or is it just a contract to hold a certain event there and do things a certain way? I don't think it is a lease like you normally think of a lease since the operator is still running the facility and providing all of the services (doors/tickets/refreshments/etc.) to the customer.

If you think of it that way, it is not like when you rent a new home and take full control of the property. The city is still in effective control of the property.

I would have to see the contract

Should be easy enough to get. Since this involves a governmental agency that leased it you should be able to obtain the entire lease via an "open records" or FOIA request.

I have an update... Mr. JD Hancock is actually a John Hancock (how is that for a famous name?). He responded to my request for his email address and I have now asked him for a response on the CHL question. We will see what happens next, but all communications with AAC have been courteous so far. Now let's just see what the position is.
Good Job Kalrog. I would appreciate it if you posted his email addy. Like others have said, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, I think it would be great to let him know we are very concerned about his position on "right to carry"

srothstein wrote:Frankie:

I just thought of one thing that may make a difference to your argument in this specific case. We all agree the property is owned by the city and therefore cannot be posted. The question is if a lessee can post. I would have to see the contract to determine for sure, but I would bet the center is not actually leased out. The center is operated by a company as an agent for the city. They are just contract employees at that point and cannot have any more rights than the employer/property owner.

So, when there is an event there, is the property leased out like you think or is it just a contract to hold a certain event there and do things a certain way? I don't think it is a lease like you normally think of a lease since the operator is still running the facility and providing all of the services (doors/tickets/refreshments/etc.) to the customer.

If you think of it that way, it is not like when you rent a new home and take full control of the property. The city is still in effective control of the property.

Didn't a previous post state that the operators had a 30 year lease?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

srothstein wrote:Frankie:

I just thought of one thing that may make a difference to your argument in this specific case. We all agree the property is owned by the city and therefore cannot be posted. The question is if a lessee can post. I would have to see the contract to determine for sure, but I would bet the center is not actually leased out. The center is operated by a company as an agent for the city. They are just contract employees at that point and cannot have any more rights than the employer/property owner.

So, when there is an event there, is the property leased out like you think or is it just a contract to hold a certain event there and do things a certain way? I don't think it is a lease like you normally think of a lease since the operator is still running the facility and providing all of the services (doors/tickets/refreshments/etc.) to the customer.

If you think of it that way, it is not like when you rent a new home and take full control of the property. The city is still in effective control of the property.

Didn't a previous post state that the operators had a 30 year lease?

From the FAQ on the AAC web page:

"Who operates the facility?

American Airlines Center is managed and operated by the Center Operating Company, which has a lease with the City of Dallas for 30 years, starting in 2001."

Penn wrote: From the FAQ on the AAC web page:

"Who operates the facility?

American Airlines Center is managed and operated by the Center Operating Company, which has a lease with the City of Dallas for 30 years, starting in 2001."

So Stephan, what do you think?

I would say that if the Center Operating Company is a government entity of some sort, they cannot post enforceable 30.06 signs and they cannot ban guns.

But if they are a private business, I think they can.

waffenmacht wrote:Good Job Kalrog. I would appreciate it if you posted his email addy.

No problem. I haven't heard back from him since I sent the question in late yesterday though.

jhancock@americanairlinescenter.com

This is off a quick google I did (Answers.com)

Type: Private - Partnership
On the web: http://www.americanairlinescenter.com
Employees: 1,625

Dallas does everything big, and the Center Operating Company is no exception. The company owns and operates the American Airlines Center, the $420 million sports and entertainment arena that opened in 2001. The venue is the home of the Dallas Mavericks pro basketball team and pro hockey's Dallas Stars. The American Airlines Center, built partially with public funds, also hosts concerts and other touring entertainment shows such as Cold Play, Disney on Ice, and Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Center Operating Company is a partnership owned by Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, Stars and Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks, and businessman Ross Perot, Jr.

Key numbers for fiscal year ending 2007:
Sale: $156.0M

Officers:
President and CEO: Brad Mayne
EVP and CFO: Craig Courson
VP Corporate Sales: Curtis Partain


Mark Cuban and Ross Perot? Might want to take this with a grain of salt because the blurb states that the company OWNS and operates the AAC.

srothstein wrote:Frankie:

I just thought of one thing that may make a difference to your argument in this specific case. We all agree the property is owned by the city and therefore cannot be posted.

No I do not agree. Anyone can post a 30.06 sign, even the govt. The difference is the posting is

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

C'mon. This really is not that hard.

Keep in mind, what is going on at AAC is about the same thing that happened at Fair Park for the State fair years ago. They too had metal detectors and denied CHL entry. The different was, CHLs got active and called them on it, and they relented.

AAC has not been called on it (till now), presumably because so many events (pro sports) are off limits anyway. The number of CHLs going to circus, cocnert or other CHL-OK event is very small, and scattered around.

If CHLs push this issue (like they did with Fair Park), and the facts are correct (Dallas owns AAC), Dallas will lose.

Penn wrote:This is off a quick google I did (Answers.com)

Type: Private - Partnership
On the web: http://www.americanairlinescenter.com
Employees: 1,625

Dallas does everything big, and the Center Operating Company is no exception. The company owns and operates the American Airlines Center, the $420 million sports and entertainment arena that opened in 2001. The venue is the home of the Dallas Mavericks pro basketball team and pro hockey's Dallas Stars. The American Airlines Center, built partially with public funds, also hosts concerts and other touring entertainment shows such as Cold Play, Disney on Ice, and Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Center Operating Company is a partnership owned by Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, Stars and Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks, and businessman Ross Perot, Jr.

Key numbers for fiscal year ending 2007:
Sale: $156.0M

Officers:
President and CEO: Brad Mayne
EVP and CFO: Craig Courson
VP Corporate Sales: Curtis Partain


Mark Cuban and Ross Perot? Might want to take this with a grain of salt because the blurb states that the company OWNS and operates the AAC.

Seems like they regard the 30 year lease as equivalent to ownership.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I would say that if the Center Operating Company is a government entity of some sort, they cannot post enforceable 30.06 signs and they cannot ban guns.

But if they are a private business, I think they can.

So you are implying that this private business that is operating a facility owned by a government entity CAN restrict???

Thats the angle you believe they can purposefully exploit to restrict CHL's from carrying in the facility they operate and maintain???

My take is, I do not believe they can legally, but it appears no one is willing to hold their feet to the fire and challenge them on it...

And that is why I believe they are hoping no one will, for as long a time as possible...

Penn wrote:
Mark Cuban and Ross Perot? Might want to take this with a grain of salt because the blurb states that the company OWNS and operates the AAC.

Yes their was a bond referendum to pay for it. Dallas voters approved it. The billionaires kicked in 1/2 and the city kicked in the other half. The billionaires out-negotiated the city (doofus mayor Kirk) and retained naming rights, which they sold to AA for their half, thus no out-of-pocket expense to them. Dallas citizens will continue to pay for AAC for another 25+ years.

This is why I cannot say with 100% certainty is is "govt property". It is mostl likey an LLC or something owned by both of them. So it is partly "Govt. Property". Looks like Case Law waiting to happen.

stevie_d_64 wrote: So you are implying that this private business that is operating a facility owned by a government entity CAN restrict???

Thats the angle you believe they can purposefully exploit to restrict CHL's from carrying in the facility they operate and maintain???

Not exactly.

If all they were doing was "operating" it, they would not be able to restrict guns.

But if they hold a 30 year lease, they are more than operators. A leasehold is a form of ownership. If they own (lease) it, and they are a private company (as they apparently are), they CAN restrict guns.

Most property is not owned outrught (i.e. in fee simple) if you think about it. Unless it's fully paid for, most of us own our homes by way of a MORTGAGE DEED. The bank holds the fee simple deed until it is paid off.

Then there are leaseholds, another form of ownership - ownership for the term of the lease (subject to whatever provisions are written into the lease of course).

Below that are simple rental agreements. If you rent a property, you control it, right? (as long as you live up to the agreement)

I'm just saying that if a private company leases it, they have all the rights that they would have with any other property they might lease - including the right to ban guns.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote: So you are implying that this private business that is operating a facility owned by a government entity CAN restrict???

Thats the angle you believe they can purposefully exploit to restrict CHL's from carrying in the facility they operate and maintain???

Not exactly.

If all they were doing was "operating" it, they would not be able to restrict guns.

But if they hold a 30 year lease, they are more than operators. A leasehold is a form of ownership. If they own (lease) it, and they are a private company (as they apparently are), they CAN restrict guns.

Well then, I believe we are almost there...The fact is we probably will not know the exact parameters in this "lease" and or "operating license" for this facility...

"Renegade" just brought up some interesting details which leads me to believe that their ability to restrict CHL's in this state, might be fairly low on their list of issues they ever expect to have to deal with at any point in this "deal"...

So the question is, "Will someone or some group challenge this?"

Enough to where either a court ruling, or opinion by the Texas AG will further (because I don't ever think this will be fully resolved) clarify and show us where the real "line" is drawn now...