TexasCHLforum.com

This is a little spin off of the Hobby Center discussion, but I think it deserves its own thread. From what I read here it seems lots of gun shows (at city or county owned venues) post 30.06 notices and have a police or security officer stationed to require you to unload and zip tie guns going in. I recall this from a show in Ft. Worth that I went to 3 or 4 years ago. I wasn't carrying, so I didn't look for a 30.06. Was in Will Rodgers Center (city owned), so a 30.06 notice would not have the force of law. They were searching backpacks and containers, but no metal detectors or pat downs.

Lately I'm somewhat disinclined to disarm just because some insurance company requires the event sponsor to post an unenforceable notice. Or because some firearms expert decides "THE ONE PLACE" we shouldn't be able to carry a loaded gun is a Gun Show. I think I'm going to go with pocket carry of a .380 or ankle holster.

AA Center (Dallas/City Owned) is tougher. They have metal detectors and when I went there for NON-SPORTING EVENT, you still had to go through. So 30.06 is legally unenforceable, but if they find your gun they aren't going to let you in. I don't really see anything in the law that forces them to let you in, but I also believe it's pretty clear you are not legally prohibited from doing so (if you can manage to sneak it through).

Thoughts?

Russell wrote:Yeah. Don't give people your money that want to limit your rights.

Problem solved.

Difficult not to pay taxes.

That is interesting that this has come up. I was thinking about attending the circus at the AA Center later in August. This goes against my don't ask, don't get notified policy, but I wonder if or who I could ask about what their policy will be and if/how they can legally enforce it. My kid wants to go and other than possibly not being able to carry I can't think of a good reason to deny her this right of passage.

Thoughts?

I may have found the answer to my own question. The American Airlines Center in Dallas is owned and operated by Center Operating Company L.P. Dallas, TX. Although, the center was partially funded by the taxpayers it is not owned by the city of Dallas.

So, I guess this answers our question of how they can legally post and enforce a 30.06 sign.

I think the term "legally unenforceable" is reaching a bit. It's my understanding that the jury is still out on matters of private organizations posting 30.06 on city-owned property. I'm with you in that I agree that the 30.06 should be considered non-compliant on city-owned property. I'm also a realist; I don't have the resources to fight this battle, nor would I want to if I did.

C-dub wrote:I may have found the answer to my own question. The American Airlines Center in Dallas is owned and operated by Center Operating Company L.P. Dallas, TX. Although, the center was partially funded by the taxpayers it is not owned by the city of Dallas.

So, I guess this answers our question of how they can legally post and enforce a 30.06 sign.

Great info. I guess I just had assumed it was owned by the City of Dallas. My research indicates Will Rogers Center IS owned by City of Fort Worth, so my gun show point is still open. Thanks for clarifying this.

C-dub wrote:I may have found the answer to my own question. The American Airlines Center in Dallas is owned and operated by Center Operating Company L.P. Dallas, TX. Although, the center was partially funded by the taxpayers it is not owned by the city of Dallas.

Well, just to confuse things further, the Dallas Tax Appraisal District Office shows the building and land to be owned by the City of Dallas and appraised at $175,632,050. There are 12 other companies who own some type of real property (office furniture and the like) there. But the building itslef is owned by the city and operated by the company.

This is firmly in the area that was under discussion. Can a city let a private entity that contracts to lease or operate a building post a sign the owner cannot? I will go with Charles' opinion and say no, but recommend against being the test case.


The other question to be discussed was how they can keep you out of the property if 30.06 is not enforceable. The correct answer is that they cannot really keep you out. The law is clear that 30.06 cannot be applied in certain cases. The only other legal means to keep you out is 30.05, the regular criminal trespass statute. And this one clearly gives you a defense that it does not apply to a CHL if the sole reason is his being armed.

Of course, the 30.05 section is a defense, which makes it completely legal to arrest you. You have to prove this is why they banned you (though this is pretty easy if they have metal detectors).

But, until someone files a civil suit against an improperly posted governmental building and it gets appealed, we will not have a true proof or means to stop it from happening. A criminal case would also work, but is less preferred by me since it means someone went to jail who should not have.

Talk about confusing! This is a link to the page I found that I based my opinion on.

http://www.hoovers.com/american-airline ... file.xhtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's probably not likely that this is done this way solely as a cover so they can prohibit CHL's from carrying weapons, but could it be a tactic used in order to do many more things with less resistance? To be considered owned by a governmental body does it have to be entirely, by majority, or even partially owned? I don't know.

I don't give a penny to anyone who even tries to deny CC except for government monopolies like the post office. I certainly would not give money to gun show owners and merchants that would deny a CHL of their ability to protect themselves. Any person involved that claims to be a supporter of 2A rights is either not truthful or fooling themselves in my opinion. Same with any business that has a policy against carry by employees and/or customers. "Gray Areas" are for people that want it both ways. That includes politicians and self-proclaimed 2A supporters who allow their own fears and prejudges to help the other side keep our rights away from us. I happen to believe that our founders had it right and the cowards in charge today have it wrong. That is my personal opinion.

C-dub wrote:Talk about confusing! This is a link to the page I found that I based my opinion on.

http://www.hoovers.com/american-airline ... file.xhtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's probably not likely that this is done this way solely as a cover so they can prohibit CHL's from carrying weapons, but could it be a tactic used in order to do many more things with less resistance? To be considered owned by a governmental body does it have to be entirely, by majority, or even partially owned? I don't know.

That is a summary page and was probably just a press release and not intended to be precise. Go with the Appraisal District records for most cases and you will have a better handle on things. Fortunately, most Texas Appraisal Districts have on line records and searches these days.

As for the percentage ownership by the government, you have a good question. If the AAC really was a true partnership in ownership, would it be considered government owned or not? I have no idea also. I guess we need to consider that question for any General Motors or Chrysler corporate property (not dealership owned) now.

I think the reasoning behind the law is if they want to post 30.06 signs they should use their own money to buy and operate the premisis and not use any tax dollars.

This is a little off topic, but since we discussed the AAC here in Dallas I came across a related venue this past weekend I thought I'd let you all know about.

I took my daughter ice skating at the DP Stars Center in Farmers Branch and since I figure it is related to the AAC somehow, not sure about this, I thought it might be posted. I drive by the front doors scrutinizing any signs and don't see anything resembling a 30.06. We park and go inside and have a great time. I did not skate. Just took pictures and recorded video of her skating. When we were leaving there was a bunch of people blocking the door we entered, so we exited through a different door about 30 feet further. After exiting I notice what appeared to be the standard "unlicensed possession" sign, but with a twist. This one said, the "licensed or unlicensed" possession was prohibited. Still, no 30.06! Cool

This was the first time I've seen this sign. I guess they're not really owned or operated by the same bunch as the AAC. Probably Dr. Pepper in a partnership with the Dallas Stars.