TexasCHLforum.com

Jusme wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:So the AG is making a distinction in an opinion where none exists within the statutes??? Sounds sort of like what the AG in Massachusetts did regarding AR rifles a couple of weeks ago.

Texas penal code clearly states that property owned or leased by a gov't agency cannot be posted with 3.06/.07 notice nor can licensed handgun carry be prohibited unless the property falls under a place prohibited under chapter 46. The statutes don't specify that a gov't agency has to be located onsite for the prohibition to be effective. The AG has effectively created a provision where none exists.

As for the question of who would be responsible for the fine, I would think that the gov't agency that owns the land would be responsible for the conduct of its tenants once they are notified that their tenants are breaking the law. If the tenants are directed to comply with the law & refuse, the gov't agency could then turn around & sue them for the assessed fines. And THAT would end the daycare/educational institution bull that the zoos and rodeos are using as justification.

I agree, This should be a simpler fix than what has been put forward. I think that the crux is, that the leasing government entity is held blameless for it's lessees posting unenforceable signage. A codicil, in the lease agreement, even after the original is signed, informing the non-profit, or for profit that any 30.06 30.07 signage would not be enforceable, should suffice. Again IANAL

I'm not a lawyer either, which is probably why my straightforward and common sense interpretation and solution would be wrong.

TexasCajun wrote:So the AG is making a distinction in an opinion where none exists within the statutes??? Sounds sort of like what the AG in Massachusetts did regarding AR rifles a couple of weeks ago.

I think the AG is trying to make us aware of the distinction between two different laws and how they interact with each other. There is one law (section 30.06/30.07) saying what is illegal for us to do, i.e. carry a firearm past a sign. The AG is saying that law states that it is not illegal for me to carry past the sign if the property is owned by the government, even if the property is leased and controlled by a non-profit organization.

There is a completely separate second law (411.209) that makes it illegal for a government agency to post a 30.06 sign. This law does not apply, according to the AG, to a non-profit that leases and is in control of property that might happen to be owned by the government.

The distinction here is the old question that has been asked about a sign being legal. We used to say all of the signs are legal to post but some are unenforceable. The AG is reminding us that all signs are legal to post EXCEPT for the GOVERNMENT posted ones, even if some of the others are unenforceable.

From what I see, I think the decision is the correct one. He even warned the city that they cannot tell the non-profit to post or it does become an illegal sign. And he basically wanred the non-profit that they can post but it won't do any good, as we can legally ignore thier sign.

TexasCajun wrote:So the AG is making a distinction in an opinion where none exists within the statutes???

Texas penal code clearly states that property owned or leased by a gov't agency cannot be posted with 3.06/.07 notice nor can licensed handgun carry be prohibited unless the property falls under a place prohibited under chapter 46. ...
...

You are wrong on both counts.

He is pointing out, very clearly, a distinction that exists in the law -- one that is NOT his place to fix.

He also points out, very clearly, that the prohibition against posting a sign or promulgating a no-carry policy is directed against a state agency or a political subdivision -- NOT against a private organization that has a limited relationship with the government. (And this is a good thing -- it would not be a good thing at all that every time an organization took a government dime that it suddenly becomes part of the government.)
This prohibition is in the Government Code, and aimed at the conduct of the government.

The exception for licensed carriers to be able to traverse the property of a governmental entity and not be guilty of trespass (unless it is statutorily off limits) because of the license and gun is in the Penal Code, and is aimed at the conduct of the licensed carrier. That is the reason that the even if a non-profit (on government land) puts up a 30.06/07 sign, it will not have the force of law. The conduct of the LTC holder would not be contrary to law.

And likewise, since the fines-for-signs law regulates the conduct of government entities, and not non-governmental entities that have an "arms-length" contract with the government, the posting of an unenforceable sign is not contrary to law either.

People seem to want the AG to wave his pen, usurp the power of the Legislature and the Constitution, and "fix" the law to their way of thinking - much like happened recently in Massachusetts. We should be happy we have an AG who doesn't go down this path.

ELB wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:So the AG is making a distinction in an opinion where none exists within the statutes???

Texas penal code clearly states that property owned or leased by a gov't agency cannot be posted with 3.06/.07 notice nor can licensed handgun carry be prohibited unless the property falls under a place prohibited under chapter 46. ...
...

You are wrong on both counts.

He is pointing out, very clearly, a distinction that exists in the law -- one that is NOT his place to fix.

He also points out, very clearly, that the prohibition against posting a sign or promulgating a no-carry policy is directed against a state agency or a political subdivision -- NOT against a private organization that has a limited relationship with the government. (And this is a good thing -- it would not be a good thing at all that every time an organization took a government dime that it suddenly becomes part of the government.)
This prohibition is in the Government Code, and aimed at the conduct of the government.

The exception for licensed carriers to be able to traverse the property of a governmental entity and not be guilty of trespass (unless it is statutorily off limits) because of the license and gun is in the Penal Code, and is aimed at the conduct of the licensed carrier. That is the reason that the even if a non-profit (on government land) puts up a 30.06/07 sign, it will not have the force of law. The conduct of the LTC holder would not be contrary to law.

And likewise, since the fines-for-signs law regulates the conduct of government entities, and not non-governmental entities that have an "arms-length" contract with the government, the posting of an unenforceable sign is not contrary to law either.

People seem to want the AG to wave his pen, usurp the power of the Legislature and the Constitution, and "fix" the law to their way of thinking - much like happened recently in Massachusetts. We should be happy we have an AG who doesn't go down this path.

Quite the contrary, I'd like the AG to enforce the laws as written and not create provisions out of thin air or other means. I've already stated that I'm not a lawyer (and this is probably where the misunderstanding is originating), and I'm basing my statements on the statutes that I've read and re-read.

So if there is indeed a distinction that exists in the law that creates a situation where an entity can lease gov't property, post the property with 30.06/.07 signs, and neither the gov't nor the entity can be fined; then what exactly was the point of fines for signs?? I recall in the hearings and floor debates several references to zoos, rodeos, and parks in addition to those of multi-purpose gov't buildings. So if the non-profit that runs the zoo on land leased by the city can continue to post unenforceable 30.06/.07 signs without penalty, one of the main reasons for passing fines for signs is now null. And the zoos, parks, and rodeos can continue their bully tactics against licensed handgun carriers without any repercussions; which leaves us back where we started prior to the last legislative session of being in the position that we either yield to the usurped authority or risk taking "the ride" and gamble on beating "the rap".