Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
In order to challenge the law, the CHL holder would have to be arrested without first being given a chance to leave after being given notice, based on the 30.06 posting. I think that they would allow a CHL to leave without arresting them.stevie_d_64 wrote:frankie_the_yankee wrote:Not exactly.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???
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...
But thats only if someone (individual) chooses to be the ever reveared "test case"...Penn wrote:In order to challenge the law, the CHL holder would have to be arrested without first being given a chance to leave after being given notice, based on the 30.06 posting. I think that they would allow a CHL to leave without arresting them.stevie_d_64 wrote:frankie_the_yankee wrote:Not exactly.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???
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...
Laws can be challenged by lawsuit also, preventing their enforcement. Happens all the time - Grand Prairie Illegal immigration law for example. The real show-stopper is money and motivation. Just not enough CHLs going to none-off-limits events at AAC to care.Penn wrote: In order to challenge the law, the CHL holder would have to be arrested without first being given a chance to leave after being given notice, based on the 30.06 posting. I think that they would allow a CHL to leave without arresting them.
That's true, but it's not the law that would be challenged, it's the interpretation - i.e. is the AAC considered a government center under the law. Personally, I think the spirit of the law was intended t ocover actual facilities where government work occurs, not arenas.Renegade wrote:Laws can be challenged by lawsuit also, preventing their enforcement. Happens all the time - Grand Prairie Illegal immigration law for example. The real show-stopper is money and motivation. Just not enough CHLs going to none-off-limits events at AAC to care.Penn wrote: In order to challenge the law, the CHL holder would have to be arrested without first being given a chance to leave after being given notice, based on the 30.06 posting. I think that they would allow a CHL to leave without arresting them.
I agree. I remember the debate to be about going to govt offices conducting business, paying bills, getting permits, looking up public records, etc. Many cities had banned guns from premises. Don't recall anything about arenas.Penn wrote: Personally, I think the spirit of the law was intended t ocover actual facilities where government work occurs, not arenas.
Sure, because arenas mainly catered to events that were already off-limits to us because of the type of event...Renegade wrote:I agree. I remember the debate to be about going to govt offices conducting business, paying bills, getting permits, looking up public records, etc. Many cities had banned guns from premises. Don't recall anything about arenas.Penn wrote: Personally, I think the spirit of the law was intended t ocover actual facilities where government work occurs, not arenas.
Nathan,
Thanks for your kind words regarding our facility and staff and I am happy to address your concerns. Your understanding of the facts that you listed appears to be correct, but your interpretation of their meaning is where our position and yours conflict.
Like all statutes, this one spells out what can't be done, but does not mention anything about what can be done. Specifically, the American Airlines Center is allowed to have, and to enforce, "house rules". Our house rules prohibit patrons from bringing several items into the facility and handguns are one of the items which are prohibited, even when legally possessed by a CHL holder. Just as it is not illegal to possess a bottle of water and a bag of popcorn, we have house rules that prohibit you from entering with your own food and drink. Likewise, there are many shows that we prohibit entry with cameras, even though they are legal to possess.
The statute states we may not be able to use that particular statute to prosecute, but does not mandate that entry be allowed and does nothing to prohibit our ability to use and enforce "house rules".
I hope this clarifies our position on this matter and I thank you for your inquiry. Please feel free to call me on my direct line, 214-665-4827, should further discussion be desired or if I may be of assistance at any time.
John
That is what I wrote on page 4.Nathan,
...
The statute states we may not be able to use that particular statute to prosecute, but does not mandate that entry be allowed and does nothing to prohibit our ability to use and enforce "house rules".
...
John
Which is why 30.06 will never come into play. They don't need it to keep CHL holders out.Renegade wrote:That is what I wrote on page 4.Nathan,
...
The statute states we may not be able to use that particular statute to prosecute, but does not mandate that entry be allowed and does nothing to prohibit our ability to use and enforce "house rules".
...
John
Read it again. Prosecution is what is prohibited, not entry.Kalrog wrote:I disagree. They ARE using your legally carried firearm as the basis to exclude you. And that is specifically prohibited in government facilities.
Kalrog wrote:I just got a response from John @ AAC and I can say that the communication has started and is on a good track. Below is his response and I will be formulating a follow up. Suggestions/thoughts welcome:
Nathan,
Thanks for your kind words regarding our facility and staff and I am happy to address your concerns. Your understanding of the facts that you listed appears to be correct, but your interpretation of their meaning is where our position and yours conflict.
Like all statutes, this one spells out what can't be done, but does not mention anything about what can be done. Specifically, the American Airlines Center is allowed to have, and to enforce, "house rules". Our house rules prohibit patrons from bringing several items into the facility and handguns are one of the items which are prohibited, even when legally possessed by a CHL holder. Just as it is not illegal to possess a bottle of water and a bag of popcorn, we have house rules that prohibit you from entering with your own food and drink. Likewise, there are many shows that we prohibit entry with cameras, even though they are legal to possess.
The statute states we may not be able to use that particular statute to prosecute, but does not mandate that entry be allowed and does nothing to prohibit our ability to use and enforce "house rules".
I hope this clarifies our position on this matter and I thank you for your inquiry. Please feel free to call me on my direct line, 214-665-4827, should further discussion be desired or if I may be of assistance at any time.
John
You got that right!Thanks for your kind words regarding our facility and staff and I am happy to address your concerns. Your understanding of the facts that you listed appears to be correct, but your interpretation of their meaning is where our position and yours conflict.