American Airlines Center, I have an answer

[bauerdj]

Becuse of who owns this property I do not think they are allowed to give notice, verbally or in writing. I am not sure on this so maybe someone like TXI who is better versed in the law will comment .

That said, unless someone has the time, dedication and financial resources to make a test case out of it we lose as usual.

It seems a shame that in so much of this the law is in our favor but we can't take advantage of it because of the expense and time involved when we are forced to fight for our rights.

Dave B.

[CHL/LEO]

The City of Dallas does not operate or manage the AAC. A private company runs the day to day operations of it with the only city oversight being in the original terms of their 30 year lease. Whether that changes things or not I'm not really sure.

[KBCraig]

If your firearm is detected then they would tell you no entry with that firearms, by law that is your opportunity to return to vehicle and secure or go home, etc. If you create a fuss and do not want to leave because of RKBA etc, then you have failed to depart and broken the law in my opinion. From there on, you are arrestable and out comes the handcuffs and you have no support from me in my mind.

Lucky, perhaps you're overlooking the distinction, but since this venue is owned by the city, it doesn't matter what kind of notice they give: it is not against the law for a CHL to enter while armed (not counting sporting events, etc.)

txinvestigator posted the law. If the property is owned by a government entity, then it is an exception to the crime of "Trespass by a CHL holder". It's not a defense; it is not a crime, and you can't legally even be arrested, much less prosecuted, for something that is not a crime.

[Lucky45]

If your firearm is detected then they would tell you no entry with that firearms, by law that is your opportunity to return to vehicle and secure or go home, etc. If you create a fuss and do not want to leave because of RKBA etc, then you have failed to depart and broken the law in my opinion. From there on, you are arrestable and out comes the handcuffs and you have no support from me in my mind.

Lucky, perhaps you're overlooking the distinction, but since this venue is owned by the city, it doesn't matter what kind of notice they give: it is not against the law for a CHL to enter while armed (not counting sporting events, etc.)

txinvestigator posted the law. If the property is owned by a government entity, then it is an exception to the crime of "Trespass by a CHL holder". It's not a defense; it is not a crime, and you can't legally even be arrested, much less prosecuted, for something that is not a crime.

You didn't read the whole discussion if you made that comment because the quote was in response to what do you do if confronted at metal detectors. We have already passed the topic of the validity of having a sign for CHL on certain buildings.
And it has already been addressed that it does matter what kind of notice is given even if it is a government building. Your buddy, TXI, agreed that oral notice is effective for CHL and doesn't matter who owns the building.

So you are taking quotes out of context.

"Failing to depart" is the part of 30.06 that I highlighted in that discussion which is part of the law I said that would have been broken in that scenario. Police do something similar all time, where they ask people to leave the immediate area of an incident and those that create fuss or do not move fast enough, they cuff them and charged them with obstruction of justice / interfering with police duties or whatever they call it in their jurisdiction. Same applies to 30.06, they are not going to arrest you because you are there with a firearm, but if you don't remove the firearm from the area after given notice, then you can be cuffed the same way.

[Xander]

"Failing to depart" is the part of 30.06 that I highlighted in that discussion which is part of the law I said that would have been broken in that scenario. Police do something similar all time, where they ask people to leave the immediate area of an incident and those that create fuss or do not move fast enough, they cuff them and charged them with obstruction of justice / interfering with police duties or whatever they call it in their jurisdiction. Same applies to 30.06, they are not going to arrest you because you are there with a firearm, but if you don't remove the firearm from the area after given notice, then you can be cuffed the same way.

That is incorrect, as I read the code. Verbal notice carries the same weight as a valid 30.06 sign. The exception applies equally to both. If they can't legally post a 30.06 sign, they can't legally give you verbal notice either...Therefore, you can't legally be arrested for failing to depart.

-Xander

[KBCraig]

If your firearm is detected then they would tell you no entry with that firearms, by law that is your opportunity to return to vehicle and secure or go home, etc. If you create a fuss and do not want to leave because of RKBA etc, then you have failed to depart and broken the law in my opinion. From there on, you are arrestable and out comes the handcuffs and you have no support from me in my mind.

Lucky, perhaps you're overlooking the distinction, but since this venue is owned by the city, it doesn't matter what kind of notice they give: it is not against the law for a CHL to enter while armed (not counting sporting events, etc.)

txinvestigator posted the law. If the property is owned by a government entity, then it is an exception to the crime of "Trespass by a CHL holder". It's not a defense; it is not a crime, and you can't legally even be arrested, much less prosecuted, for something that is not a crime.

You didn't read the whole discussion if you made that comment because the quote was in response to what do you do if confronted at metal detectors.

I have read the whole discussion, as well as the law. The law is the same at the metal detectors as it is at the doors, whether the notice or oral, written, or a posted sign.

Your buddy, TXI, agreed that oral notice is effective for CHL and doesn't matter who owns the building.

I do believe that's the first time that TXI and I have been called "buddies".

"Failing to depart" is the part of 30.06 that I highlighted in that discussion which is part of the law I said that would have been broken in that scenario. Police do something similar all time, where they ask people to leave the immediate area of an incident and those that create fuss or do not move fast enough, they cuff them and charged them with obstruction of justice / interfering with police duties or whatever they call it in their jurisdiction.

You're talking about two completely different laws, while arguing that 30.06 "verbal notice" is in effect at a government-owned building.

Same applies to 30.06, they are not going to arrest you because you are there with a firearm, but if you don't remove the firearm from the area after given notice, then you can be cuffed the same way.

If a peace officer --as opposed to the tenant, vendor, security, etc.-- orders you to leave and you refuse, you could conceivably be charged with disorderly conduct or obstructing. But my point is that you cannot be charged with criminal trespass on any government-owned property, if carrying a handgun is the basis for asking you to leave.

[txinvestigator]

[ Your buddy, TXI, agreed that oral notice is effective for CHL and doesn't matter who owns the building.

No, that is NOT what I wrote. Oral notice in a government owned place does not override the fact that it is an exception to the application of 30.06 for a government owned place.

If there is a person at the door stating "no guns allowed" to everyone who enters a government owned place a CHLer is not violating 30.06 by entering.

Re-read the law carefully.

and on a side note, no offense to KBCraig, while I have no problems with KB, for you to call me 'his buddy' (especially in the manner and with the meaning you did) shows you are NOT paying attention.

[Dougmyers5]

The bottom line is the bad guys wont care one way or another and until someone gets hurt or killed at the AAC it will not get tested.

It will take a crime and or injury's and deaths after the fact to show the powers that we have a right to protect ourselves without fear of prosecution.

JMHO

[txinvestigator]

Your buddy, TXI, agreed that oral notice is effective for CHL and doesn't matter who owns the building.

I do believe that's the first time that TXI and I have been called "buddies".

]

If a peace officer --as opposed to the tenant, vendor, security, etc.-- orders you to leave and you refuse, you could conceivably be charged with disorderly conduct or obstructing. But my point is that you cannot be charged with criminal trespass on any government-owned property, if carrying a handgun is the basis for asking you to leave.

There is no disorderly that fits, and there is no such charge as obstruction in Texas. But I believe that there WOULD be an arrest, and I am just not that much of a civil activist.

[ELB]

Hmmm... Interesting thread. Kudos to waffenmacht for having the energy and nerve to try to track down a straight answer. Raspberries to those who threw brickbats at him.

As a practical matter, I am not surprised at the outcome -- as far as I can see there is no penalty for violating the law by incorrectly banning CHL holders -- the only penalty is for CHL holders who cross the line. Maybe some day the law and society will be willing to encourage sane adults to provide for their own defense, but not there yet.

Anyway, there was an oddity in interpreting the law that popped up in this thread, which I think KBCraig, Xander, Frankie-the-yankee, and maybe somebody else caught. It appears that some are arguing that at a governmental owned property it doesn't matter if they can't post the 30.06 sign, you can still be given verbal notice and legally prevented from carrying or forced to leave. I do not see this in the law at all.

Section 30.06 deals with when trespass by a CHL holder becomes an offense. It explicitly excepts the CHL holder from this section when the "property is owned or leased by a governmental entity," and is not already otherwise off-limits to CHL holders by being listed in 46.03 or 46.035 (e.g. a school, polling place, etc).

Thus as I read the actual law, it does not matter whether a 30.06 sign is posted or verbal notice is given, or metal detectors are in place -- if the government owns it or leases the property, a CHL holder cannot be charged with trespass for carrying under this section, and by extension, forced to leave or not carry a concealed handgun. If the American Airlines Center is a government owned property (and the americanairlinescenter.com website says it is leased from city of Dallas), then it doesn't doesn't look to me like American Airlines (or whoever is running the circus) can ban CHL holders from events that do not fall into the areas listed in 46.03 and 46.035.

Of course, in practice, it would not surprise me if the management involved chose to bluff their way past this and declare no guns period -- after all, they will not suffer any penalty for it, and on the off chance that you suffer injury because they tricked or intimidated you into leaving your gun in the car, they will not suffer for that either. (At least I am not aware yet that any property owner, governmental or otherwise, had been held responsible for injury because they prevented, legally or illegally, a person from having the means to defend himself).

The exception for government owned property was put in after some cities tried to ban CHL holders from city buildings and properties, claiming that the city government was the "owner." At least part of the logic of the legislature and TSRA was that no, the city government is not the owner, the people are the owners, and the people have already spoken through the legislature. TSRA asked its members to take pictures of city and county government buildings displaying the 30.06 sign; I believe the pictures were used as evidence to the legislature that this was indeed a problem.

Waffenmacht and the rest of us might have better luck "educating" governments by bring this to the attention of TSRA's officers. If TSRA as an organization get interested in subjects like this, maybe bringing some organized attention to the AAC management may bring them into line. I believe a similar situation occured with the texas state fair (which used metal detectors), and an arrangement worked out.

Or better yet, somebody will run with Governor Perry's comment after the Virginia Tech incident, where he said (paraphrasing from memory) - "maybe we shouldn't have any off-limits zones...open them all up" [to CHL holders].


elb

[Penn]

If a third party is leasing the government-owned property, I would think that they would be able to exclude whoever they wanted. I would think it would be like a citizen leasing an apartment. They would be able to exclude anyone from entering the apartment.

[seamusTX]

If a third party is leasing the government-owned property, I would think that they would be able to exclude whoever they wanted. I would think it would be like a citizen leasing an apartment. They would be able to exclude anyone from entering the apartment.

Those situations are not similar. The American Airlines Center is a public accommodation and subject to different rules than a residence.

The law says --

(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

IMHO, the legislature intended that no facility owned by a governmental entity (and thus by the public) can be posted, regardless of who leases or operates it.

We won't have a definitive legal opinion until someone is arrested and gets to an appeals court.

- Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

If a third party is leasing the government-owned property, I would think that they would be able to exclude whoever they wanted. I would think it would be like a citizen leasing an apartment. They would be able to exclude anyone from entering the apartment.

This is precisely the argument that some cities and some private entities have argued. To my knowledge, there is no case law deciding this issue.

The problem with the private lessee argument is that it ignores the fact that a lessee takes the property subject to all lawful restrictions on usage of the property.

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

So because "waffenmacht" recieved notice that he can't enter the center does not mean that everyone can't carry.

I was absolutely with you up to this point where something about this just didn't look right...See what I mean???

[stevie_d_64]

As a practical matter, I am not surprised at the outcome -- as far as I can see there is no penalty for violating the law by incorrectly banning CHL holders -- the only penalty is for CHL holders who cross the line. Maybe some day the law and society will be willing to encourage sane adults to provide for their own defense, but not there yet.

You hit a big point there...

Obviously, until one of us decides they have some deep pockets and can take one for the team, we may not have a serious challenge to these facilities and entities continuing to not obey the laws on the books...