TexasCHLforum.com

OK, so we know that cities are not allowed to post 30.06 signs on city property, and can even get into trouble for doing so. Great!
What about 30.07 signs? Can cities say that you can carry concealed but not openly on city property, buildings, etc.?

RossA wrote:OK, so we know that cities are not allowed to post 30.06 signs on city property, and can even get into trouble for doing so. Great!
What about 30.07 signs? Can cities say that you can carry concealed but not openly on city property, buildings, etc.?

From the way I read it, they can post them and maybe not be subject to civil fines, but they cannot prosecute you for ignoring them. This will be pretty easy to test come 1 January. Anyone want to join me at the Ft. Worth Zoo on January 6?

I wonder when the legislature passed the new law about fining cities for improper 30.06 signs, why they didn't also put in 30.07 signs? Was it just an oversight, or are they trying to give cities the ability to ban open carry on city property?

RossA wrote:I wonder when the legislature passed the new law about fining cities for improper 30.06 signs, why they didn't also put in 30.07 signs? Was it just an oversight, or are they trying to give cities the ability to ban open carry on city property?

I believe it was because HB273 (30.06 posting penalty) was filed before Open Carry bill, so the language didn't foresee open carry.

ScottDLS wrote:

RossA wrote:I wonder when the legislature passed the new law about fining cities for improper 30.06 signs, why they didn't also put in 30.07 signs? Was it just an oversight, or are they trying to give cities the ability to ban open carry on city property?

I believe it was because HB273 (30.06 posting penalty) was filed before Open Carry bill, so the language didn't foresee open carry.

SB273 passed before HB910, so there was no Section 30.07 to be addressed in the Bill.

Chas.

Charles, you think there is any chance that next session we might get 30.07 added to the illegal posting law?

ScottDLS wrote:

RossA wrote:OK, so we know that cities are not allowed to post 30.06 signs on city property, and can even get into trouble for doing so. Great!
What about 30.07 signs? Can cities say that you can carry concealed but not openly on city property, buildings, etc.?

From the way I read it, they can post them and maybe not be subject to civil fines, but they cannot prosecute you for ignoring them. This will be pretty easy to test come 1 January. Anyone want to join me at the Ft. Worth Zoo on January 6?

Bet you a box of ammo you won't!

locke_n_load wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

RossA wrote:OK, so we know that cities are not allowed to post 30.06 signs on city property, and can even get into trouble for doing so. Great!
What about 30.07 signs? Can cities say that you can carry concealed but not openly on city property, buildings, etc.?

From the way I read it, they can post them and maybe not be subject to civil fines, but they cannot prosecute you for ignoring them. This will be pretty easy to test come 1 January. Anyone want to join me at the Ft. Worth Zoo on January 6?

Bet you a box of ammo you won't!

I'm really considering it, but the position that they are a school means that if they were to try to prosecute me it would be a felony charge. On the other hand, if I never entered any of the buildings (premises) and just walked around the grounds, it would be a class C misdemeanor charge at most.

RossA wrote:Charles, you think there is any chance that next session we might get 30.07 added to the illegal posting law?

Very good chance.

Chas.