TexasCHLforum.com

Say you're attending an event at an event center owned/operated by your local municipality - a birthday party, civic club meeting, etc. While at the meeting, one of the organizers of the event tells you that you can't carry during their event. The facility is not posted, and it would be enforceable if it were, since it's owned by the city. Does the event organizer telling you this meet the requirement of "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication"?

My thought is no it doesn't. The organizer is clearly not the owner, and I don't see how they have any apparent authority to act for the owner. Therefore, them telling you not to carry does not constitute "effective consent" so you are free to carry on.

Whether you should continue to carry after being asked not to is a separate discussion; I'm just asking about the legality of "effective consent."

Thoughts?

If I'm understanding this scenario correctly, it is a city owned facility, but has been rented out for a private event such as a birthday party/conference/etc. As such, the city is prohibited from posting 30.06/.30.07 or otherwise prohibiting carry by a LTC (unless its already prohibited location). I'll let someone else provide the citation, but I believe there is an AG Opinion Letter that opines if an outside entity leases city-owned buildings they may post 30.06/30.07. I'll also defer to the lawyers here whether this would apply to a short term rental (birthday party/expo), or only to a long-term exclusive use type lease.

EDIT: Thanks to ELB for posting the link & excerpt from KP-0108. Based on the reading of the AG's analysis, the private entity leasing the facility could post 30.06/30.07 signs and not face the civil fines that a governmental agency would, but a court would 'likely' rule that the clause in 30.06/30.07 of not applying to government-owned property would render them unenforceable.

And to clarify, "Effective Consent" is the exact opposite of "providing effective notice under 30.06/30.07". Effective Consent is when someone in a position of apparent authority GIVES you permission (ie, consent) to carry on the property they have control over ("Hey Bob, I know you have an LTC, & I'm good with you carrying concealed when you visit my store. You can ignore those dumb 30.06 signs I put up to placate other's anxiety").

My opinion:

The lessee MAY post 30.06/30.07. However, the AG's opinion is that the 30.06/30.07 signs ARE NOT enforceable. Keep in mind that the lessee most likely can ask you to leave for no reason at all. So, carry concealed under these circumstances.

mloamiller wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:30 pm Say you're attending an event at an event center owned/operated by your local municipality - a birthday party, civic club meeting, etc. While at the meeting, one of the organizers of the event tells you that you can't carry during their event. The facility is not posted, and it would be enforceable if it were, since it's owned by the city. Does the event organizer telling you this meet the requirement of "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication"?

My thought is no it doesn't. The organizer is clearly not the owner, and I don't see how they have any apparent authority to act for the owner. Therefore, them telling you not to carry does not constitute "effective consent" so you are free to carry on.

Whether you should continue to carry after being asked not to is a separate discussion; I'm just asking about the legality of "effective consent."

Thoughts?

They telling you individually or folks in general? Nonsense like this is the exact reason no to advertise you carry.

Attorney General opinion KP-0108 seems to speak most directly to your question.
https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/o ... kp0108.pdf


An excerpt from that opinion:

The plain language of subsections 30.06(e) and 30.07(e) make an exception if the property
on which the license holder carries a gun "is owned or leased by a governmental entity." TEX.
PENAL CODE§§ 30.06(e), .07(e). These statutes make no exception to that exception for property
owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity, and to conclude that carrying a
handgun on such property is prohibited would therefore require reading language into the statute
beyond what the Legislature included. See Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 282 S.W.3d at 443 (noting
that courts "refrain from rewriting text that lawmakers chose"). Thus, a court would likely
conclude that a license holder carrying a handgun on property that is not a premises or other place
from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the
Penal Code and that is owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity is excepted
from the offenses in 30.06(a) and 30.07(a).2

The AG specifically addresses whether the law as written allows a private entity lessee to forbid licensed carry, and he comes to the conclusion that the Legislature did not address this particular instance. But, he says in the excerpt above, the plain reading of the law says a license holder cannot be prevented from carrying on owned or leased government property unless that has been specified in the PC Section 46.

To restate it as I understand it, you cannot be prohibited from carrying a handgun under authority of your LTC on property owned or leased by a (Texas) governmental entity unless that property has been identified as off limits to LTC carry in PC 46.03 or 46.035. Although the private entity leasing the government property acquires some owner powers, forbidding LTC carry is not one of them.

To my knowledge this has not been tested in court, and the private entities and the local constabulary may or may not be aware of the AG's opinion on the matter.

If they try to have you removed under basic trespass because you are carrying under authority of your LTC, PC 30.05, you have a defense to prosecution specifically against this.

So, in general, legally it you can carry regardless of the event organizer's wishes, but I don't know if that is spelled out clearly enough in the law that you would avoid problems.

My situation with Lewisville a few years ago was close to this.

The whole downtown part of the city had been fenced off. Entrance to the Western Days even was through gates were a private security firm was set up and wanding everyone, not even allowing pocket knives. I saw two men rejected from entrance because of knives and both returned to their cars to leave the knives outside. I just knew that my EDC and spare mag were not going to go well with the wanding process and I didn't want to get into a he said-she said with the private security guard over whether he had the authority to reject my LTC so I told him that I didn't want to be wanded and asked him to call a supervisor.

Instead, two Lewisville police officers showed up and asked me if I was "having a good day". I showed the my LTC and immediately the officer responded that the security guard did not have the authority to over-rule it. The officers instructed me to submit to the wanding and I did - including my pocket knife. They walked with me after the wanding, we shook hands and they left. I learned the next day that an off-duty Lewisville officer who was also carrying had gotten stopped at the wanding point.

I'm not sure if there was an event organizer in charge of the event versus actual city employees. I'd guess the answer to be yes.

On a humorous note, my wife went ahead to the venue where our granddaughter was dancing and told everyone "Grampy is going to get arrested."

chasfm11 wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:18 am
Instead, two Lewisville police officers showed up and asked me if I was "having a good day". I showed the my LTC and immediately the officer responded that the security guard did not have the authority to over-rule it. The officers instructed me to submit to the wanding and I did - including my pocket knife. They walked with me after the wanding, we shook hands and they left. I learned the next day that an off-duty Lewisville officer who was also carrying had gotten stopped at the wanding point.

You never really said if you were allowed in or not. Did the officers walk with you into the event, or back to your car?

chasfm11 wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:18 am My situation with Lewisville a few years ago was close to this.

The whole downtown part of the city had been fenced off. ..

Heh. A few years ago Seguin had an event on the city square. A few days prior there had been an altercation between a Seguin teenager and some alleged gang members in San Antonio, and there was a rumor/threat the gang might be coming to Seguin for "revenge". Because of this the city government announced that no weapons would be allowed at the event and fences were put up around the square with cops and wands at the entrances.

Knowing this when I approached the cop with the wand at the entrance I simply handed him my LTC. He grinned, gave it back, said "congratulations!" and shook my hand before letting me in.

LDP wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:34 am
I assume (but merely assume) that it was a happy ending since it sounds like the officers knew the law and didn't try to illegally side with ignorant security employees. That must have been in a red county. Try it in a libtard blue county full of law-ignorant morons and you WILL be arrested and can take it up with lawyers later, thousands of dollars later, once you are released on bail and go see a libtard judge.

Security guards will do what the employer tells them, they want to get paid. Whether it is illegal or not, they don't care much, they want to get paid.

Good job, Chas, I like the happy ending.

Red and Blue jurisdictions aren't necessarily so black and white on these issues. Harris County is pretty blue these days. Its been my own observation from anecdotal reports that most of the Police Sheriff and constable understand and respect Armed citizen Laws. Where the conflicts happen is when the ruling powers such as Judges, Councilmen, and even the Chiefs themselves are challenged. Such as illegally posted tax offices. I have no concerns about carrying in leftist cities like Houston or Austin. but would be hesitant about entering a posted tax office in these cities.

Mel wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:16 am

chasfm11 wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:18 am
Instead, two Lewisville police officers showed up and asked me if I was "having a good day". I showed the my LTC and immediately the officer responded that the security guard did not have the authority to over-rule it. The officers instructed me to submit to the wanding and I did - including my pocket knife. They walked with me after the wanding, we shook hands and they left. I learned the next day that an off-duty Lewisville officer who was also carrying had gotten stopped at the wanding point.

You never really said if you were allowed in or not. Did the officers walk with you into the event, or back to your car?

Sorry. They walked me into the event. There was no reason to keep me out other the possible detection of my gun at the checkpoint. I had a paid ticket. My family was all waiting for me and laughing at me since I didn't end up in bracelets. I wasn't going to back down unless that became the threat.

LDP wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:34 am

Mel wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:16 am

chasfm11 wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:18 am
Instead, two Lewisville police officers showed up and asked me if I was "having a good day". I showed the my LTC and immediately the officer responded that the security guard did not have the authority to over-rule it. The officers instructed me to submit to the wanding and I did - including my pocket knife. They walked with me after the wanding, we shook hands and they left. I learned the next day that an off-duty Lewisville officer who was also carrying had gotten stopped at the wanding point.

You never really said if you were allowed in or not. Did the officers walk with you into the event, or back to your car?

I assume (but merely assume) that it was a happy ending since it sounds like the officers knew the law and didn't try to illegally side with ignorant security employees. That must have been in a red county. Try it in a libtard blue county full of law-ignorant morons and you WILL be arrested and can take it up with lawyers later, thousands of dollars later, once you are released on bail and go see a libtard judge.

Security guards will do what the employer tells them, they want to get paid. Whether it is illegal or not, they don't care much, they want to get paid.

Good job, Chas, I like the happy ending.

It was a happy ending. I also stopped by the PD the next day to discuss the situation. I wanted to try to make sure that some procedure was put into place so that I didn't end up going through the same routine again. The Lt. that I spoke with was very 2nd Amendment friendly. It was he who shared the fact that one of his off-duty officers had to deal with the wand, too. He was very clear that the City is not allowed to restrict licensed carry.