American Airlines Center, I have an answer

[frankie_the_yankee]

Uh, Frankie, did you read Mr. Cotton's post about the leasee having to abide by any law governing the owner?

No. But I do not think it applies in a case like this.

In general, when you lease property, you own it for the term of the lease, subject to the terms of the lease of course.

Unless the lease had a provision saying that the leasees were prohibited from banning firearms from the facility, they can do what they want, IMO, because while the lease is in effect, THEY OWN IT.

But as I say, challenge if you must. Just don't expect anything to come of it.

I'd be curious as to what the TSRA legal crew has to say.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Okay, I'm ready to take one for the team. I'm going to join TSRA this week and encourage them to challenge AAC. After all, the folks operating this center are doing this with my tax dollars.

If a private company is leasing it, they can do anything they want that would be legal if they owned it outright.

Thats not what the LAW says in the case of facility owned by a government.

Just what does the law say about a government owned facility that is leased to a private entity?

[txinvestigator]

Okay, I'm ready to take one for the team. I'm going to join TSRA this week and encourage them to challenge AAC. After all, the folks operating this center are doing this with my tax dollars.

If a private company is leasing it, they can do anything they want that would be legal if they owned it outright.

Thats not what the LAW says in the case of facility owned by a government.

Just what does the law say about a government owned facility that is leased to a private entity?

It is already posted in this thread.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Not only is this positiion ~legally~ incorrect, but I propose that it is ~morally~ incorrect also.

No argument with the moral part.

But how is it legally incorrect?

[Charles L. Cotton]

In general, when you lease property, you own it for the term of the lease, subject to the terms of the lease of course.

A lessee takes the property subject to all lawful terms in the lease, and all legal restrictions on the use of the property. For example, if you lease city-owned property and the lease is silent as to what types of commercial activities can be conducted, you could not open a sexually oriented business within XX feet of a school or church in violation of a city ordinance, even though it was not addressed in the lease. If you rent a home and the lease is silent as to commercial use, you could not open a retail business in violation of city zoning laws, or deed restrictions on the property. If your theory was correct, it would be easy to circumvent statutes and ordinances simply by leasing the property to someone.

Unless the lease had a provision saying that the leasees were prohibited from banning firearms from the facility, they can do what they want, IMO, because while the lease is in effect, THEY OWN IT.

No they don't own it. They have many, but not all, of the rights of the owner, but they don't own the property. If they owned it, they could sell it.

I'd be curious as to what the TSRA legal crew has to say.

You just did. I'm Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee and a practicing attorney.

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

Not only is this positiion ~legally~ incorrect, but I propose that it is ~morally~ incorrect also.

No argument with the moral part.

But how is it legally incorrect?

I think Photoman enumerated some really good points...

But from what I understand if the facility is owned and operated by a government entity, SB501 (2005) prohibits the banning of firearms carried by persons with CHL's...With the obvious stipulations already in the law regarding the types of events held in those facilities that would be off-limits...Pro Sporting events being the main issue we come up against all the time...No big deal there, everyone is comfortable with that reality...

But if the "government owned facility/venue" is being leased to a private promoter that is conducting an event that is not restricted to us by the law, like a musical concert, circus, etc etc...

I recall seeing in an earlier post that the promoter cannot regulate or restrict the carrying of a firearm regardless, even if it is in the lease agreement or not...That lease agreement would be in error in that case...

I cannot go into a lease agreement with an apartment complex and agree that it is ok to cook Meth, just because it would be in the lease, that says its ok to do so...(I know thats a stretch)...

I mean this is where I, and maybe a few others need clarification...If this is the case, then the promoters should be taken to task, and the government needs to be clear on this aspect when they do lease out these facilities...

The dynamic in all of this to me is incredible...Not only will the private (promoters) fight this, the government entities might lose business, and the insurance agencies underwriting the policies for these events will fight all of this tooth and nail!

So where is the first domino suppose to fall, and will it again require another law to further bog the system down when we already have the enforcement protocol to straighten this out right now...

No need to wait at all...I bet it would take a little nudge from the AG's office to topple the first one...

But this is just my take on it...

Its not like there's going to be blood in the streets or nothing... Right???

[Renegade]

But from what I understand if the facility is owned and operated by a government entity, SB501 (2005) prohibits the banning of firearms carried by persons with CHL's...

No, it prohibits the PROSECUTION under 30.06. They can still ban.

(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

[cxm]

The real question here is HOW do citizens make governments obey the law?

Several cities are ignoring the law...

It would be useful if the TSRA (or NRA for that matter) could provide us with a legally sufficient form letter that could be filled in and sent to the cities involved to start the ball rolling on enforcing the law.

I doubt the state will do much to enforce the law...

FWIW

Chuck

[CHL/LEO]

BTW, how long is the CT card good for???

six months

Does the CT Card need to be followed up with by a court order???

nope

[txinvestigator]

The real question here is HOW do citizens make governments obey the law?

Several cities are ignoring the law...

It would be useful if the TSRA (or NRA for that matter) could provide us with a legally sufficient form letter that could be filled in and sent to the cities involved to start the ball rolling on enforcing the law.

I doubt the state will do much to enforce the law...

FWIW

Chuck

The problem is there is no law for the state to enforce.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The real question here is HOW do citizens make governments obey the law?

Several cities are ignoring the law...

It would be useful if the TSRA (or NRA for that matter) could provide us with a legally sufficient form letter that could be filled in and sent to the cities involved to start the ball rolling on enforcing the law.

I doubt the state will do much to enforce the law...

FWIW

Chuck

The problem is there is no law for the state to enforce.

This is precisely the problem.

When SB501 passed making 30.06 unavailable to governmental entities and agencies, it was expected that elected officials and appointees would act responsibly and not post unenforceable signs. So, no prohibition on posting them was included in the Bill. Obviously, we were naive. I know of no State agencies that are posting 30.06 signs, though there may be some, but there are many cities and independent school districts that are doing so. Perhaps this will be addressed in 2009.

Chas.

[frankie_the_yankee]

In general, when you lease property, you own it for the term of the lease, subject to the terms of the lease of course.

A lessee takes the property subject to all lawful terms in the lease, and all legal restrictions on the use of the property. For example, if you lease city-owned property and the lease is silent as to what types of commercial activities can be conducted, you could not open a sexually oriented business within XX feet of a school or church in violation of a city ordinance, even though it was not addressed in the lease.

Not a good example. You couldn't open such a business in violation of city ordinance even if you owned it outright.

If you rent a home and the lease is silent as to commercial use, you could not open a retail business in violation of city zoning laws, or deed restrictions on the property. If your theory was correct, it would be easy to circumvent statutes and ordinances simply by leasing the property to someone.

Again, you couldn't violate a zoning law or deed restriction even of you owned it in fee simple. The law is the law.

Unless the lease had a provision saying that the leasees were prohibited from banning firearms from the facility, they can do what they want, IMO, because while the lease is in effect, THEY OWN IT.

No they don't own it. They have many, but not all, of the rights of the owner, but they don't own the property. If they owned it, they could sell it.

Actually, they can sublet it, unless the lease prohibits that. That's almost the same thing as selling it.

I'd be curious as to what the TSRA legal crew has to say.

You just did. I'm Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee and a practicing attorney.

Chas.

Well, if you think there's a case there, then give it a go. But my suspicion is that, depending on the fine print in the lease of course, a leasee who is a private business can post 30.06 if they want, regardless of who might happen to hold title in fee simple.

[txinvestigator]

In general, when you lease property, you own it for the term of the lease, subject to the terms of the lease of course.

A lessee takes the property subject to all lawful terms in the lease, and all legal restrictions on the use of the property. For example, if you lease city-owned property and the lease is silent as to what types of commercial activities can be conducted, you could not open a sexually oriented business within XX feet of a school or church in violation of a city ordinance, even though it was not addressed in the lease.

Not a good example. You couldn't open such a business in violation of city ordinance even if you owned it outright.

If you rent a home and the lease is silent as to commercial use, you could not open a retail business in violation of city zoning laws, or deed restrictions on the property. If your theory was correct, it would be easy to circumvent statutes and ordinances simply by leasing the property to someone.

Again, you couldn't violate a zoning law or deed restriction even of you owned it in fee simple. The law is the law.

Unless the lease had a provision saying that the leasees were prohibited from banning firearms from the facility, they can do what they want, IMO, because while the lease is in effect, THEY OWN IT.

No they don't own it. They have many, but not all, of the rights of the owner, but they don't own the property. If they owned it, they could sell it.

Actually, they can sublet it, unless the lease prohibits that. That's almost the same thing as selling it.

I'd be curious as to what the TSRA legal crew has to say.

You just did. I'm Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee and a practicing attorney.

Chas.

Well, if you think there's a case there, then give it a go. But my suspicion is that, depending on the fine print in the lease of course, a leasee who is a private business can post 30.06 if they want, regardless of who might happen to hold title in fee simple.

You are being incongruent. Charles is correct.

[Charles L. Cotton]

In general, when you lease property, you own it for the term of the lease, subject to the terms of the lease of course.

A lessee takes the property subject to all lawful terms in the lease, and all legal restrictions on the use of the property. For example, if you lease city-owned property and the lease is silent as to what types of commercial activities can be conducted, you could not open a sexually oriented business within XX feet of a school or church in violation of a city ordinance, even though it was not addressed in the lease.

Not a good example. You couldn't open such a business in violation of city ordinance even if you owned it outright.

If you rent a home and the lease is silent as to commercial use, you could not open a retail business in violation of city zoning laws, or deed restrictions on the property. If your theory was correct, it would be easy to circumvent statutes and ordinances simply by leasing the property to someone.

Again, you couldn't violate a zoning law or deed restriction even of you owned it in fee simple. The law is the law.

That's precisely my point; the law (TPC §30.06) expressly states that TPC §30.06 doesn't apply government owned or leased property. Show me anything in that statute that says it doesn't apply to a private person or entity leasing or renting government owned property.

Unless the lease had a provision saying that the leasees were prohibited from banning firearms from the facility, they can do what they want, IMO, because while the lease is in effect, THEY OWN IT.

No they don't own it. They have many, but not all, of the rights of the owner, but they don't own the property. If they owned it, they could sell it.

Actually, they can sublet it, unless the lease prohibits that. That's almost the same thing as selling it.

Yeah, but close doesn't count, either when you want to sell property you don't own, or when you want to post a 30.06 sign on government owned proprty.

I'd be curious as to what the TSRA legal crew has to say.

You just did. I'm Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee and a practicing attorney.

Chas.

. . . But my suspicion is that, depending on the fine print in the lease of course, a leasee who is a private business can post 30.06 if they want, regardless of who might happen to hold title in fee simple.

What makes you think a private contract such as a lease can vitiate a state statute? You erroneously argued that my sexually oriented business and zoning law examples were not on point, because "the law is the law." Those examples are precisely on point; the law states that TPC §30.06 cannot be used on property owned or leased by a governmental entity or agency.

We obviously are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. But I would still like you to show me a statute or case law that says a private lease or rental agreement can be used to render a state statute null and void.

Chas.

[frankie_the_yankee]

That's precisely my point; the law (TPC §30.06) expressly states that TPC §30.06 doesn't apply government owned or leased property. Show me anything in that statute that says it doesn't apply to a private person or entity leasing or renting government owned property.

1) If the government owns it, they cannot enforce 30.06.

2) If the government leases it from a private owner, they cannot enforce 30.06.

3) If a private company leases it from the government, it is an entirely different matter.

IANAL. And I think we have pretty much wrung this one out. I'll follow any developments with interest.