Galveston City Hall

[seamusTX]

I have been meaning to post this for a while.

Galveston City Hall has the following sign, in English and Spanish:

Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 411.203 and Ordinance 90-05, it is unlawful to carry a concealed handgun on these premises.

The referenced laws:

GC §411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business.

Sec. 24-16. Carrying concealed handgun.
(a) Definitions. As used in this section, all terms, phrases and words and their derivations shall have the meanings ascribed to them below unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
Concealed handgun shall mean a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
Handgun shall have the meaning assigned by Section 46.01 of the Texas Penal Code.
Premises shall mean any building or portion of a building that is owned or operated by the city, including, but not limited to City Hall, the municipal court building, playgrounds, Moody Civic Center, police department building(s), fire department buildings or sub-stations, the municipal airport. Premises shall not mean streets, sidewalks, walkways, or alleys.
(b) Offense. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a concealed handgun upon any premise owned by or operated by the city.
(c) Defenses.
(1) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that a person possessed a handgun and was licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes.
...
(d) Penalty. The violation of any provision of section 24-16 shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00).
(Ord. No. 95-50, § 2, 8-10-95; Ord. No. 95-68, § 2, 10-12-95)

This sign and ordinance are clearly obsolete and do not conform to the current PC § 30.06. They may have been valid in 1995, which is when I think the ordinance was enacted.

Am I going to be a test case? No, sorry. I can't afford it.

- Jim

[Kalrog]

That looks like it can apply to employees, but it is invalid for the rest of the population. So yeah, invalid and unenforceable (like you mentioned).