Challenging local ordinances; preemption

[KBCraig]

Texarkana has three ordinances forbidding the possession of firearms in parks and buses. I don't know of them being enforced in recent years, but I'd like to persuade them to change the municipal code, just on principle.

What is the preemption section of Texas Code? I'd look it up, but I don't know if it's GC, PC, or some other section.

Two of the ordinances are older, dating to 1964 and 1980. One is newer, from 2001 (so it's inexcusable that they included a firearms ban at that point).

ARTICLE I. REGULATION OF CONDUCT IN PUBLIC PARKS
Sec. 17-5. Recreational activities.
No person in a park shall:
(1) HUNTING AND FIREARMS. Hunt, trap or pursue wild life at any time. No person shall use, carry, or possess firearms of any description, or air-rifles, spring-guns, bows and arrows, slings or any other forms of weapons potentially inimical to wild life and dangerous to human safety, or any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device. Shooting into park areas from beyond park boundaries is forbidden.
(Ord. No. 21-64, § 5, 3-19-64)


ARTICLE III. BRINGLE LAKE
Sec. 29-44. Firearms, hunting and camping.
(a) No person on the Bringle Lake property shall hunt, trap or pursue wildlife at any time. No person shall use, carry or possess firearms of any description or air-rifles, spring-guns, bows and arrows, slings or any other forms of weapons potentially inimical to wildlife and dangerous to human safety, or other instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device. Shooting into the Bringle Lawe area from beyond park boundaries with any of the aforementioned weapons is prohibited.
(Ord. No. 229-80, § 1, 7-28-80)


ARTICLE VIII. PUBLIC TRANSIT OFFENSES
Sec. 15-66. Prohibitions; public transit offenses.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to commit any of the following acts while aboard public transit system vehicles, and at public transit facilities and other transit service provision locations:
(18) Carry on their person deadly weapons including firearms, knives, switchblades, swords, or other weapons that could endanger other passengers.
(Ord. No. 123-01, § 1, 5-14-01)

[KBCraig]

Ah, never mind. I found the relevant penal code:

§ 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or
agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by
this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section
shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed
by this code is legally enforceable.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[seamusTX]

There is a more relevant pre-emption code:

LGC §229.001. FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

Thanks, Jim. PC 1.08 is a catch-all for anything covered in the Penal Code, but the LGC makes it clear that they mean guns, too.

[stevie_d_64]

On two of the ordinances...

No person shall use, carry, or possess firearms of any description,...potentially inimical to wild life and dangerous to human safety,

I always thought our intent to carry was "for" mine and others human safety...Not that I am being picky, just annoying...

But that is beside the point...

What could possibly be the charge against a person for carrying a firearm for lawful self-defensive purposes would be??? The only way they would know is if you defended yourself against an illegal act that you reasonably believed that deadly force was justified to stop the threat and or illegal act against you or in your presense...

These ordinances, do not in my opinion, meet the requirements of state law that give guidance in applying the provisions in Sec. 30.06 (which we all know so well) that put the brakes on us...Non CHL'ers are probably bound to these ordinances more than we are, which is sad from a certain point of view...

Is the carrying of a firearm (for lawful purposes) just as, or more illegal, than a criminal conducting their business in these "places"??? To me these are just public places and services, with no real controlled access or screening that would provide some sort of "knowledge" about who is temporarily utilizing these services or facilities...And not that this really matters either...

These are some things I would bring up with city officials, and honestly and as respectfully as I could ask if this applies to CHL'ers and others whom have licenses to carry that we have reciprocity with...If they say no, get it in writing, go public and take care of their confusing intent...If they say yes, then I guess they assume a "gun-free zone" will work there, like it has so well in other places, like Virginia Tech, etc etc...

This is just another fine example of a line drawn in the sand...It should create a personal gut-check that forces you to make a decision...Do I challenge where that line is drawn??? Or, do I somehow recklessly cross the line and hope for the best??? Or, do I challenge the people who drew this line, and get them to clarify their intent???

Or, do I just not patronize these services or facilities...

This is how I approach these issues...

Just my opinion...