TexasCHLforum.com

I was trying to do a little research and was hoping to maybe get some clarification on some things.

If an "event center" is owned by the city or even county can it legally be 30.06 posted? If not and security or hired LEOs are checking people at the door what then?
We are taking our kids to a show tonight and I have read another discussion about said place doing both things. I didn't find anything helping me decide what to do or anything on their website.

http://www.alleneventcenter.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

Hope everyone had a safe and happy Thanksgiving

there is a lot of discussion on this topic,
Specifically as it relates to gun shows which are held at City Owned locations, yet still posted 30.06.

Until there is a test case, of someone who did not INTENTIONALLY reveal their concealed weapon, and was arrested and charged with trespassing under 30.06, we will never really know the answer.

I had a similar situation in Lewisville a couple of months back. The city had put up fence around the downtown area and hired private security. The security firm was wanding everyone and even rejecting pocket knives. When I got to the person with the wand, I told them that I didn't want to be wanded. The Lewisville police showed up a few minutes later and agreed that I could not be prohibited from carrying. I followed up the next day with one of the Lewisville Lieutenant at the PD. He confirmed that CHLs were permitted in the event.

In your place, I would go to the PD and ask about the 30.06. The worst that they can do is tell you that they plan to enforce it but you would know before you go there and be able to handle your gun in an appropriate way. Grapevine does the same thing with their downtown fair (posts a 30.06) and claims that it is enforceable. I don't have enough spare funds to see if they would try it in court.

The Texas Legislature had a solution for this malarkey in the last session. It would have fined cities and municipalities for posting a 30.06 but the bill was killed in committee by a controlling Democrat.

They can post the sign but it has zero legal weight against CHL unless it's "a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035."

bizarrenormality wrote:They can post the sign but it has zero legal weight against CHL unless it's "a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035."

But the cops can still arrest you, take you to jail, and confiscate your weapon with little to no repercussions after the lawyer you hire convinces the DA you didn't break any laws.
That's all assuming they don't find something else to charge you with.

bizarrenormality wrote:They can post the sign but it has zero legal weight against CHL unless it's "a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035."

I'd be happy to help take up a collection to assist with bail or legal fees for anyone who wants to press Allen's 30.06 sign. I realize that concealed means concealed but the OP made the suggestion that there might be checks. That might include wanding.

When I taught my kid's to drive, they wanted to do the right things. I explained that doing the right things doesn't always keep you out of trouble if someone else does the wrong ones. The bottom line is to avoid an "accident." I still believe that.

jmra wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:They can post the sign but it has zero legal weight against CHL unless it's "a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035."

But the cops can still arrest you, take you to jail, and confiscate your weapon with little to no repercussions after the lawyer you hire convinces the DA you didn't break any laws.

Dirty cops can always find an excuse to arrest people they're prejudiced against. How much somebody worries about things like that will depend on their perception of how many cops are dirty where they live and the probability the dirty cops will target them based on their skin color, religion, etc.

Putting those worries about official oppression aside, the 30.06 law is crystal clear about government property.

bizarrenormality wrote:

jmra wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:They can post the sign but it has zero legal weight against CHL unless it's "a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035."

But the cops can still arrest you, take you to jail, and confiscate your weapon with little to no repercussions after the lawyer you hire convinces the DA you didn't break any laws.

Dirty cops can always find an excuse to arrest people they're prejudiced against. How much somebody worries about things like that will depend on their perception of how many cops are dirty where they live and the probability the dirty cops will target them based on their skin color, religion, etc.

Putting those worries about official oppression aside, the 30.06 law is crystal clear about government property.

But I have yet to meet an officer that knew that was the law and I've met a number of CHL instructors that were clueless that 30.06 signs were not enforceable on gov owned property.
I'm not even suggesting they are dirty, just not as informed about CHL laws as they should be.

jmra wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

jmra wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:They can post the sign but it has zero legal weight against CHL unless it's "a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035."

But the cops can still arrest you, take you to jail, and confiscate your weapon with little to no repercussions after the lawyer you hire convinces the DA you didn't break any laws.

Dirty cops can always find an excuse to arrest people they're prejudiced against. How much somebody worries about things like that will depend on their perception of how many cops are dirty where they live and the probability the dirty cops will target them based on their skin color, religion, etc.

Putting those worries about official oppression aside, the 30.06 law is crystal clear about government property.

But I have yet to meet an officer that knew that was the law and I've met a number of CHL instructors that were clueless that 30.06 signs were not enforceable on gov owned property.
I'm not even suggesting they are dirty, just not as informed about CHL laws as they should be.

I posted about my encounter a while back, when I pointed out the law to a Pasadena Police Officer working at extra at the city owned Pasadena Convention Center that it couldn't be posted and she told me they "can do anything they want". You can't argue with arrogant ignorance.

It really kind of ticks me off they posted the sight in faint white lettering below knee length. It was dark AND the only reason I saw it was because I was LOOKING for it. No security at all and I carried it anyways I was willing to be a test candidate. The holidays bring out the worst in people and it was a populated event and populated area. I was with my wife, 2 children, sister in law, 2 nephews, and niece. IMHO I was morally obligated to carry.

Read the "Law" I think it may say that whomever has effective control of the property (Leased for a couple of days) could put up the 30.06 sign, becasuse at that time they have effective control.. I also am NOT an attorney.

o b juan wrote:Read the "Law" I think it may say that whomever has effective control of the property (Leased for a couple of days) could put up the 30.06 sign, becasuse at that time they have effective control.. I also am NOT an attorney.

It is professionally entered on the door. It would take someone scraping it off in order to remove it. They have gun shows at this place, music artist, comedians. etc.

Umm, the law says "owned". Since when does the term "owned" mean he who controls it? Just because I control my apartment, does that mean I own it? Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with what you "think" it says as I have read it and it most certainly does not say "whomever has effective control", it says "owned or leased by". The OP was saying the city owns the building, not that they lease it and have control of it.

Now, if the property was leased by the city and it was then leased to the event holder to the extent that the cities lease was no longer valid, then sure, I could see how it might be enforceable. That situation could definitely be interpreted as a situation where he who controls it can set the rules. In this case tho, I see nothing that says some third party owns the property and the city leases it from them.

wes from your " Owned or leased by.."

who has effective control when it is leased?

That has nothing to do with a property that is owned by the city, as was the ops question. If you are trying to say that space in a city owned building is leased, therefor not controlled by the city any more then its invalid. The law says owned by, so if the city owns it, it doesn't matter who leased it from them. The law does not say if owned by the city but leased by others can a 30.06 be valid. The owned or leased by a city is for situations where a city leases the space, not the other way around. If there is another section outside 3006 that says owned by city but leased by others relinquishes the powers of the space to he who controls it, then by all means share it. I've not read anything of the like tho.