TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.whamprod.net/images/pdfs/201 ... 3-memo.pdf

I don't know if this was posted previously, but here it is in case it wasn't. He makes it pretty clear.

Outstanding.

This is very interesting, and I certainly am happy with the conclusions, but where does this fit into the legal framework?

IIRC, some DAs had asked the AG for clarification about multi-use buildings. Did the AG then ask the Governor what he thought? Did the Governor just offer this opinion to the AG on his own initiative? What weight does it carry legally? Is this sort of like a 'friend of the court brief' in a trial?

Than all tax assessment offices who post 30.06 are invalid.

Well done, Governor.

But it sounds like government meetings that qualify under the Open Meetings law are off limits. I thought the new law allowed government meetings to be posted 30.06/30.07, but otherwise we remained free citizens at meetings.

I haven't been to a government meeting in a few months. If I was confused, at least I haven't broken that particular law.

Absent a 30.06 sign, can we carry at meetings?

ELB wrote:This is very interesting, and I certainly am happy with the conclusions, but where does this fit into the legal framework?

IIRC, some DAs had asked the AG for clarification about multi-use buildings. Did the AG then ask the Governor what he thought? Did the Governor just offer this opinion to the AG on his own initiative? What weight does it carry legally? Is this sort of like a 'friend of the court brief' in a trial?

In this case, as the former AG and as Sitting Governor, I would believe that the current AG would likely concur and so would the majority of the courts. While not graven in stone, weight swung is considerable..

treadlightly wrote:Well done, Governor.

But it sounds like government meetings that qualify under the Open Meetings law are off limits. I thought the new law allowed government meetings to be posted 30.06/30.07, but otherwise we remained free citizens at meetings.

I haven't been to a government meeting in a few months. If I was confused, at least I haven't broken that particular law.

Absent a 30.06 sign, can we carry at meetings?

You have to read the rest of 46.035.

46.035(i) states "Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

So it has to be a qualified Open Meeting and they have to post a 30.06 sign if they want to prevent concealed carry.

treadlightly wrote:Well done, Governor.

But it sounds like government meetings that qualify under the Open Meetings law are off limits. I thought the new law allowed government meetings to be posted 30.06/30.07, but otherwise we remained free citizens at meetings.

I haven't been to a government meeting in a few months. If I was confused, at least I haven't broken that particular law.

Absent a 30.06 sign, can we carry at meetings?

As I understand a 30.06 is NOT required, but just serves as a warning. But YMMV.

Definitely interesting reading though as it shows clearly the intent that Texas should have regarding prohibiting CHL holders.

As with above, not sure what this does other than to perhaps put governments on "notice" to some degree. Coupled with an AG opinion that says that they violated, that they were told they were violating, and did it anyway would hopefully produce some attention getting fines. It sure would be nice to see the AG come out with an opinion as well. Not sure other than for fines where that leaves someone who runs afoul of a government at one level or another that still refuses to comply. But again, interesting reading -- thanks for posting it!

Papa_Tiger wrote:

treadlightly wrote:Well done, Governor.

But it sounds like government meetings that qualify under the Open Meetings law are off limits. I thought the new law allowed government meetings to be posted 30.06/30.07, but otherwise we remained free citizens at meetings.

I haven't been to a government meeting in a few months. If I was confused, at least I haven't broken that particular law.

Absent a 30.06 sign, can we carry at meetings?

You have to read the rest of 46.035.

46.035(i) states "Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

So it has to be a qualified Open Meeting and they have to post a 30.06 sign if they want to prevent concealed carry.

Right, thanks, meetings are like hospitals where we can't go - but only if 30.06 is posted.

A very good read - made me smile multiple times!

So... if arrested and convicted of said violations , just apply for a pardon?

Does this have any legal bearing? If not, what did it clear up?

koine2002 wrote: ... It is however, in essence, instructions from the state's chief prosecutor regarding the handling of such cases of a complaint is filed against an LTC holder if arrested for carrying in a multi-purpose building but not the court portion.

Is this really true? Yes he is officially the chief law enforcement officer, but I find it hard to imagine that the Governor has much actual legal power over decisions of the elected district attorneys about how to prosecute anything.

Heck, the Governor can't even get the criminally drunken ones to resign without getting indicted himself.