American Airlines Center, I have an answer

[txinvestigator]

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.right

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

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

[Kalrog]

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

1) A lease cannot grant rights to the leasee that the leasor does not have the ability to grant.
2) The government does not have the right to 30.06 on property that they own.
3) There is no statute that allows the government to pass on 30.06 rights to leasees.
3) Therefore the government cannot grant 30.06 permissions in a lease.
4) QED: private companies cannot enforce 30.06 on government owned buildings.

Or more specifically: TPC §30.06 doesn't apply government owned property as per TPC §30.06 itself. Nowhere does it grant that ability to leasees. Just because you think it should be that way does not make it that way.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Or more specifically: TPC §30.06 doesn't apply government owned property as per TPC §30.06 itself. Nowhere does it grant that ability to leasees. Just because you think it should be that way does not make it that way.

Darn it! Please don't think that I think it should be that way. I don't.

It's just that I think that it is that way, even though I don't like it.

And I suspect that litigation will prove to be fruitless.

[Kalrog]

Now back to the original post...

Has anyone contacted either of these gentlemen to see what their take is after the fact? Maybe get a more reasoned email out of them instead of a quick answer in person? If not, I will probably send that email to Mr. Melsby tomorrow.

Kevin Melsby
Event Coordinator the AAC
(214) 665 4203
(214) 665 4850 fax
kmelsby@americanairlinescenter.com

J.D. Handcock
(not sure of his offical title)
(214) 665 4827

[Kalrog]

Darn it! Please don't think that I think it should be that way. I don't.

Fair enough. Poor phraseology (wow, the spell checker didn't choke on that one - I guess it really is a word).

It's just that I think that it is that way, even though I don't like it.

Based on what? What legal precedent or statute or case law leads you to believe that this is the way it is? I want to know if I am wrong, but I don't think I am in this case. And I (and others) have cited statute to support that side. I would be interested in seeing dissenting opinions.

[KBCraig]

IANAL.

Charles is.

[waffenmacht]

"Has anyone contacted either of these gentlemen to see what their take is after the fact? Maybe get a more reasoned email out of them instead of a quick answer in person? If not, I will probably send that email to Mr. Melsby tomorrow. "

Kalrog, please do. I would love to see if his story changes, or stays the same. I would like to see a letter sent asking for a clairification as to why CHL holder's are being turned away from entering this building when a non-sporting event is going on. Also, what is the official title of J.D. Handcock? (I wish I would have gotten this).

All any of these guys need to do is say I mis-quoted them. Getting thier position on tape or in writing is the way to go.

[frankie_the_yankee]

1) A lease cannot grant rights to the leasee that the leasor does not have the ability to grant.

Aw heck.

What if I walked up to the City of Dallas and just bought the AA Center for cash? I'd get a fee simple deed, along with any easements, mineral rights, air rights, and/or deed restrictions attached to the property.

I would own it.

As a private businessman, I could post it 30.06 if I wanted to, unless there was a deed restriction that prohibited it.

So how does Dallas convey to me the right to do that, if they "do not have the ability to grant" that right?

Or are you arguing that once a government entity owns a piece of property, it may NEVER be posted 30.06 no matter who they sell it to?

The answer is that Dallas doesn't have to "convey" the right to post 30.06 to me when they sell me the property. That's because the right BELONGS TO ME ALREADY as a private property owner. It applies to any property I own, no matter who owned it previously and no matter what CHL policies they had.

Say I lease it for 99 years. No difference, unless the lease itself prohibits 30.06 postings. Once I have a lease, my rights determine what I can do.

For instance, I could transform it into some kind of fully private facility - say like a huge loft for my own use - and not accommodate the disabled or minority groups.

Or I could sublet it to the Violence Policy Center (Handgun Control) as their new headquarters.

Basically, I can do whatever is not banned by the terms of the lease.

And you won't find the answer in the 30.06 statute. You will need to review the laws governing leaseholds.

[waffenmacht]

Yankee, you are quite simply, wrong sir.

Now if you BUY the property from the city of Dallas, then you OWN it. As the property OWNER you can post an effective 30.06. Why? because it is owned by you , not the city.

That is NOT the case with the AAC. American Airlines does NOT own the property. It is owned by the city of Dallas.

Leasing, renting, squating, or whatever does not mean you OWN it. Sorry you are having trouble seeing that, but to the rest of us, it is quite clear.

You had it right when you said: "If the government owns it, they cannot enforce 30.06". Stick with that and you will be okay!

[frankie_the_yankee]

Leasing, renting, squating, or whatever does not mean you OWN it. Sorry you are having trouble seeing that, but to the rest of us, it is quite clear.

Review the laws defining leaseholds and then show me whare I'm wrong.

[stevie_d_64]

IANAL.

Charles is.

touche'!!!

[stevie_d_64]

Txi,

Your going to give yourself a headache again!!!

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . Basically, I can do whatever is not banned by the terms of the lease.

No you can’t; that is flat wrong under Texas law.

And you won't find the answer in the 30.06 statute. You will need to review the laws governing leaseholds.

Point me to it.

I'll give it one last try. You are focusing on who can and cannot post an enforceable 30.06 sign and this is the mistake in your logic. The statute addresses what cannot be posted, not who.

Look at TPC §30.06(e). It doesn't say governments can't post 30.06 signs; it says certain property cannot be posted. That property is property owned or leased by governmental entities or agencies.

In order for your theory to be correct, the statute would have to be worded something like, "(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the person or entity controlling and posting the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is a governmental entity."

That is not what TPC §30.06(e) states. Rather, it focuses on what cannot be posted -- government owned or leased property. Here is the statute again:

(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.

You argue that if you bought the property, then you could post it. You are correct, because the property would no longer fit the requirements of TPC §30.06(e) because it would no longer be owned by a governmental entity. Your contention that a leasehold equals ownership is just flat wrong under Texas law. That's not merely my professional opinion, that's the law in Texas.

Chas.

[GrillKing]

Here's the bottom line in my view:

1. AAC cannot give binding written or verbal notice against carry by a CHL.
2. They know that, at least at the top where decisions are made.
3. They will almost certainly ask you to leave if you are found to be carrying.
4. They will tell you you will be arrested even if they know they won't arrest you.
5. They may or may not arrest you if you do not leave, they count on us believing they will.
6. They know we are not willing to be a test case.
7. They have effectively banned legal, concealed carry.

[fizteach]

As a tax payer, I don't care who is leasing it or under what terms. The bottom line is that my tax dollars continue to pay for the center no matter who is leasing it. As a tax paying citizen of the City of Dallas, I have an interest in the property because I am helping pay for the building.

I think my rights as a tax payer out trump the rights of someone who is leasing my building.