TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:21 am**

waffenmacht wrote:First, I found that J.D. Hancock's official title is "vice president of safety for AA Center"

Where did you find that and did you manage to get an email address? I would like to be able to email Mr. Hancock as well to see what sort of a response I get from him (no response from the earlier email yet.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:28 am**

I know that there is the following exception but that's what this discussion is all about:

(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.

Frankie may actually have a point...

He, and some of us, may not have stumbled upon this just yet...Or been able to form it up like this just yet...

You know when the bells and whistles start going off???

The section doesn't say owned or leased by a "private entity"...Even though it is a government run facility, and that the argument is not so much is does that keep the government from banning firearms in these cases (SB501, 2005 took care of this), does that requirement trickle through ANY lease agreement between the facility owner (government) to the lessee (private entity/organizer)???

I believe it does, especially if the event conducted at that facility is not already prohibited by the core law...

My take is that the organizers and the people that are part of the facility ownership are absolutely NOT following the law...And they need to be taken to task for that infraction!

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:37 am**

Kalrog,
I got that info from doing a google search on J.D. Hancock.

I emiled Meslby to see if I could get an email addy for Hancock. I will let you know what I find out, and if I even get a reply. Im sure if he is the VP of Safety, he must have a public email addy we can use. Any written response from him will give Cotton something to chew at.
-Bruce

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:01 am**

waffenmacht wrote:I emiled Meslby to see if I could get an email addy for Hancock.

I emailed the general customer support address at the AAC to get Mr. Hancock's address. I'll let you know what happens on my side as well.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:13 am**

stevie_d_64 wrote:
I know that there is the following exception but that's what this discussion is all about:

(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.

Frankie may actually have a point...

He, and some of us, may not have stumbled upon this just yet...Or been able to form it up like this just yet...

You know when the bells and whistles start going off???

The section doesn't say owned or leased by a "private entity"...Even though it is a government run facility, and that the argument is not so much is does that keep the government from banning firearms in these cases (SB501, 2005 took care of this), does that requirement trickle through ANY lease agreement between the facility owner (government) to the lessee (private entity/organizer)???

I believe it does, especially if the event conducted at that facility is not already prohibited by the core law...

My take is that the organizers and the people that are part of the facility ownership are absolutely NOT following the law...And they need to be taken to task for that infraction!

You may be right, they may not be following the law. That's a matter for the courts to decide. However, once they mag you, find the gun and ask you to leave, you are obligated to do so. They have every right to do this.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:16 am**

stevie_d_64 wrote: The section doesn't say owned or leased by a "private entity"...Even though it is a government run facility, and that the argument is not so much is does that keep the government from banning firearms in these cases (SB501, 2005 took care of this), does that requirement trickle through ANY lease agreement between the facility owner (government) to the lessee (private entity/organizer)???

That's my point. It doesn't. The leasee (private company) has the right to post 30.06 signs even though the leasor (the city) did not.

The right to post is attached to the person or actor, not the property. The city doesn't have the right, but a private company does.

It seems like the private company has a 30 year lease. To me, that puts them in control of the property.

So they can post it if they want and it will be enforceable.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:56 am**

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote: The section doesn't say owned or leased by a "private entity"...Even though it is a government run facility, and that the argument is not so much is does that keep the government from banning firearms in these cases (SB501, 2005 took care of this), does that requirement trickle through ANY lease agreement between the facility owner (government) to the lessee (private entity/organizer)???
That's my point. It doesn't. The leasee (private company) has the right to post 30.06 signs even though the leasor (the city) did not.

The right to post is attached to the person or actor, not the property. The city doesn't have the right, but a private company does.

Your point is in error.

Anyone can post the signs. There is no law stating who may or may not post the signs.

The law discusses whether or not the signs are enforceable based upon who owns or leases the property.

That is the flaw of the whole law. How do I know if it is enforceable or not? How do I know who owns or leases the property? What if it changed recently and I do not know it? What if there is a court office in there that was not there last month? I just avoid Govt. buildings altogether whenever possible.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:56 am**

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The right to post is attached to the person or actor, not the property.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Where in 30.06 does it say that? I just don't see it - it says that property owned by a governmental agency cannot enforce 30.06. That sure reads like it is attached to the property and not the person.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:00 am**

Penn wrote:However, once they mag you, find the gun and ask you to leave, you are obligated to do so. They have every right to do this.

They sure have every right to ask you to leave, but they have no power to force it. <Insert test case warning here> They only reason you are being asked to leave is because of you are legally armed via CHL. 30.06 makes it pretty clear that property owned by a governmental agency cannot bar you access simply because of your armed status under CHL authority.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:01 am**

"(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."

The above does not say whom may post or give verbal notice; what it say is that it is an exception to the section which says that the CHL holder must leave if given notice. It also says "owned or leased by a governmental entity", if the government owns the facility the exception applies. There is no language that provides an exception to the exception if the government owns it but it is leased or managed by a private entity.

That said, I am not a lawyer and this area is complex enough that it calls for a legal professional.

Dave B.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:27 am**

Kalrog wrote:
frankie_the_yankee wrote:The right to post is attached to the person or actor, not the property.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Where in 30.06 does it say that? I just don't see it - it says that property owned by a governmental agency cannot enforce 30.06. That sure reads like it is attached to the property and not the person.

Property cannot be an actor. It can't enforce anything. Only an owner or leasee can act.

But lookat 30.06. It says it is an exception if the property is "owned or leased" by a government entity.

So if a government entity owns the property, they can't ban guns via 30.06.

And it seems the same thing holds if the government entity merely leases the property from a private interest.

In other words, 30.06 seems to treat ownership and leaseholds as the same thing.

Likewise, I submit, if a private entity "owns or leases" property from anyone (government or not) they have whatever rights they have as a private entity.

And under 30.06, they have the right to ban guns.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:59 am**

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Likewise, I submit, if a private entity "owns or leases" property from anyone (government or not) they have whatever rights they have as a private entity.

I understand that is what you are submitting. I just don't see anywhere in 30.06 that supports that position. Is there a trick/usage of the English language that could be used on that verbage that I am unaware of? Because I still read it as 30.06 cannot be enforced on property owned by a governmental agency. <standard exceptions such as professional sporting events excluded>

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:24 pm**

Kalrog wrote:
Penn wrote:However, once they mag you, find the gun and ask you to leave, you are obligated to do so. They have every right to do this.
They sure have every right to ask you to leave, but they have no power to force it. <Insert test case warning here> They only reason you are being asked to leave is because of you are legally armed via CHL. 30.06 makes it pretty clear that property owned by a governmental agency cannot bar you access simply because of your armed status under CHL authority.

You are saying that if they ask you to leave, that you don't have to? That is just ludicrous. You have no inherent right to be at the AAC. They can kick you out for almost anything. If you refuse, you are trespassing.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:28 pm**

Penn wrote:
Kalrog wrote:
Penn wrote:However, once they mag you, find the gun and ask you to leave, you are obligated to do so. They have every right to do this.
They sure have every right to ask you to leave, but they have no power to force it. <Insert test case warning here> They only reason you are being asked to leave is because of you are legally armed via CHL. 30.06 makes it pretty clear that property owned by a governmental agency cannot bar you access simply because of your armed status under CHL authority.
You are saying that if they ask you to leave, that you don't have to? That is just ludicrous. You have no inherent right to be at the AAC. They can kick you out for almost anything. If you refuse, you are trespassing.

Defense to prosecution and all that. Of course once they find this out, they will make up a different excuse.

PC 30.05:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:33 pm**

Renegade wrote:
Penn wrote:
Kalrog wrote:
Penn wrote:However, once they mag you, find the gun and ask you to leave, you are obligated to do so. They have every right to do this.
They sure have every right to ask you to leave, but they have no power to force it. <Insert test case warning here> They only reason you are being asked to leave is because of you are legally armed via CHL. 30.06 makes it pretty clear that property owned by a governmental agency cannot bar you access simply because of your armed status under CHL authority.
You are saying that if they ask you to leave, that you don't have to? That is just ludicrous. You have no inherent right to be at the AAC. They can kick you out for almost anything. If you refuse, you are trespassing.
Defense to prosecution and all that. Of course once they find this out, they will make up a different excuse.

PC 30.05:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.

Wanna bet they can't kick you out?

Go there with your gun and CHL and be the test case. I'll bet they can not only kick you out, but they can and will throw you in jail as well.

And they won't need to make up some other excuse. They will kick you out because you have a gun and refuse to leave.

This thread is getting ludicrous.

30.06 treats owning or leasing by a government entity as the same thing. Doesn't it follow that owning or leasing by a PRIVATE ENTITY would also be the same?

Forget wishful thinking. Forget the way you would like it to be. Just look at the simple logic of it.

TexasCHLforum.com

American Airlines Center, I have an answer