TexasCHLforum.com

JKTex wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

JKTex wrote:

JohnMarine wrote:Austin city hall is posted. They hold court some times and have the whole building posted everyday regardless if there is court that day or not.

A court or building with space used as a court is a prohibited place regardless of 30.06 so if Austin City Hall is posted, it's for no effective reason.

This is incorrect. The definition of "premises" includes "a building or portion of a building, . . ." If only a portion of a building is used as a court, then only that portion of the building is off-limits.

Chas.

Thanks for the correction. I have to admit I don't think I've ever read it, I just thought I understood it. So much for thinking.

There may be many of us that have misunderstood this here. I thought it had been discussed many time and the consensus was that if there was a courtroom in the building that the entire building was off limits.

C-dub wrote:

JKTex wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

JKTex wrote:

JohnMarine wrote:Austin city hall is posted. They hold court some times and have the whole building posted everyday regardless if there is court that day or not.

A court or building with space used as a court is a prohibited place regardless of 30.06 so if Austin City Hall is posted, it's for no effective reason.

This is incorrect. The definition of "premises" includes "a building or portion of a building, . . ." If only a portion of a building is used as a court, then only that portion of the building is off-limits.

Chas.

Thanks for the correction. I have to admit I don't think I've ever read it, I just thought I understood it. So much for thinking.

There may be many of us that have misunderstood this here. I thought it had been discussed many time and the consensus was that if there was a courtroom in the building that the entire building was off limits.

That was my understanding as well. Also, doesn't that section of the law say something like "court or offices used by a court"? It always seemed to me that this had a lot of potential for abuse. A city could theoretically move a trivial court administrative function into an otherwise non-court building and call it off-limits?

Slightly off topic but if we're going to allow this, I wish the law would require the entity to state on a separate sign why the building or area is statutorily off limits (such as "Licensed or unlicensed possession prohibited due to: COURT")

Having said that, are we sure there are courts in Austin City Hall? The website shows four municipal court locations, none of which are in City Hall.
http://www.austintexas.gov/department/m ... -locations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JKTex wrote:

bigity wrote:More recently the police chief for TTU has outright stated he's not going to go after people with guns in their cars. He didn't mention anything about campus carry :D

It would seem strange for him to say he's not going after people with guns in their cars since it's not illegal and hasn't been for nearly 2 years.

But we're going off track because none of this has to do with 30.06.

I agree. I pointed that out in an email to the department but never got a reply :)

C-dub wrote: There may be many of us that have misunderstood this here. I thought it had been discussed many time and the consensus was that if there was a courtroom in the building that the entire building was off limits.

If guns are not allowed under condition A OR condition B, to me that means:
1) They're not allowed under condition A
2) They're not allowed under condition B

Who knows what the legal intent was.. And I understand that Charles is an attorney and I'm not. I just know that I'd have a hard time arguing about it.

Grand Prairie Police and Fire headquarters building, at Arkansas and 161, is 30.06 posted.

This sign is at all 3 Whole Foods in Austin TX.
See => http://screencast.com/t/yxiqrQpT5lbN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've never seen this one before but it contradicts itself!

Wow... What a mess!

dsp101 wrote:This sign is at all 3 Whole Foods in Austin TX.
See => http://screencast.com/t/yxiqrQpT5lbN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've never seen this one before but it contradicts itself!

That's the strangest 30.06 I've ever seen. I know it doesn't have Espanol, so it's not legal, but are the letters 1"?

TVGuy wrote:

dsp101 wrote:This sign is at all 3 Whole Foods in Austin TX.
See => http://screencast.com/t/yxiqrQpT5lbN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've never seen this one before but it contradicts itself!

That's the strangest 30.06 I've ever seen. I know it doesn't have Espanol, so it's not legal, but are the letters 1"?

I'm not sure of that, but the sign is bull.

Someone's trying to save space by combining 2 signs on a home made sign vs the TABC provided and required sign and a improper 30.06.

You know what they say about cutting corners to save a buck...........

I assume it's a grocery store, small local place?

BTW, it's not relevant to this thread though.

JKTex wrote:Someone's trying to save space by combining 2 signs on a home made sign vs the TABC provided and required sign and a proper 30.06.

You know what they say about cutting corners to save a buck...........

I assume it's a grocery store, small local place?

BTW, it's not relevant to this thread though.

And the two statutes may seem to contradict each other, but the top one is the only one of them is required. Then, if they do want to prohibit CHLs from carrying they must post the 30.06. They tried and almost succeeded, but fell short by not including the Spanish text.

Whole Foods is pretty well known for their anti-CHL stance and aren't all that small. They're no Kroger, but not a local mom and pop place either.

I just edited to change proper to improper 30.06.

I agree, for those no familiar with the laws, they might be confused. Either way, the top is posted all over the place and shouldn't be confusing or foreign, and the bottom just doesn't cut the mustard. Although I've never figured out how to actually cut mustard, unless you let it dry.

JKTex wrote:I just edited to change proper to improper 30.06.

I agree, for those no familiar with the laws, they might be confused. Either way, the top is posted all over the place and shouldn't be confusing or foreign, and the bottom just doesn't cut the mustard. Although I've never figured out how to actually cut mustard, unless you let it dry.

It's not like cutting cheese, which anyone can do. You have to freeze the mustard first.

C-dub wrote:[
And the two statutes may seem to contradict each other, but the top one is the only one of them is required. Then, if they do want to prohibit CHLs from carrying they must post the 30.06. They tried and almost succeeded, but fell short by not including the Spanish text.

Sir, did you see the posted sign at whole foods?
Yes. I noticed it wasn't compliant as it didn't have Spanish language.
Sir, do you speak spanish?
No.

Yea, I don't want to sit in front of a jury on that...

cb1000rider wrote:

C-dub wrote:[
And the two statutes may seem to contradict each other, but the top one is the only one of them is required. Then, if they do want to prohibit CHLs from carrying they must post the 30.06. They tried and almost succeeded, but fell short by not including the Spanish text.

Sir, did you see the posted sign at whole foods?
Yes. I noticed it wasn't compliant as it didn't have Spanish language.
Sir, do you speak spanish?
No.

Yea, I don't want to sit in front of a jury on that...

Yeah, still waiting on a court ruling for a situation like that.