Between A Rock and A Hard Place

[Wildalaska]

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...ban/index.html

Now granted this smarmy, giggly article is designed to point out the hypocrisy of Gun Owners when its push come to shove, but isnt it more than that?

We go back to the issue of property rights...in this case evidently a management company managing a publically owned facility...dont they have the right to control their facility?.

On the other hand, could it be said that the management company is acting unreasonably in light of the sociopolical status of the attendees? But, asuming they made an exemption for them, would they also have to make an exemption for the Death Daddy Hip Hop Convention?

Or is it easier just to inconvenience or disarm some so as not to discriminate against others?

And constitutionally, how do you balance property rtights with gun rights in a scenario like the above

WildlookingforwardtoyourthoughtsAlaska ™©2002-2011

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not sure what Reliant Stadium actually says; but "No weapons" or even "No handguns" is not sufficient to give a CHL notice that weapons are forbidden. The language used must be compliant with Sec 30.06 if the owner intends to give notice to CHL holder that their legally permitted weapons are forbidden.

Otherwise, the only places restricted from carry are those listed in 46.03 and 46.035 - and while sporting events are listed in 46.035, it doesn't appear that stadiums not being used for a sporting event qualify.

Finally, Section 30.06(e) states "It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035." So if Salon is correct and Reliant Stadium is owned or leased by Harris County, then they appear to be prohibited from prohibiting CHLs.

Off the top of my head, it looks like Salon doesn't know what it is talking about, which isn't shocking or new I suppose.

in this case evidently a management company managing a publically owned facility...dont they have the right to control their facility?.

No; because it is a publically owned facility managed with public money. They don't have any private property rights, they are managing it on behalf of the local government who is bound by its responsibilities to its citizens as well the state laws prohibiting them from blocking CHLs.

And constitutionally, how do you balance property rtights with gun rights in a scenario like the above

There are no private property rights here as it appears to be public property. Personally, I think the current rules are a pretty good balance in that regard. If it was private property, the stadium could prohibit it by posting the appropriate notice.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Perry was middling in support for the campus carry bill. He could have used his abilities to facilitate it but chose not to.

The TSRA pointed this out. Luckily the parking lot bill had enough support to make it. Campus carry had some folks changing their views and thwarting a majority view. Perry was silent about that also.

A and M and UT are vastly powerful entities in TX and Perry chose not to go to the wall for campus carry.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Also, if you ask as the gentleman in the story did and get a personal response - you are forbidden, I think. You have been specifically informed.

However, if you aren't personally informed then you need a 30.06 sign to be forbidden to carry.

I doubt reading an internet story is a sufficient personal communication but I'm not a lawyer.

[carguychris]

Off the top of my head, it looks like Salon doesn't know what it is talking about, which isn't shocking or new I suppose.

+1. As you pointed out, most responsible TX CHL holders should realize that Reliant Stadium's policy doesn't prohibit CCW unless a sporting event or school function is taking place, or, as Glenn points out, the CHL holders makes the unfortunate decision to explicitly ask the management. The writer- credited as "Alex Pareene"- didn't check his or her facts very well.

It's been my observation that large public institutions in TX frequently have blanket no-weapons policies that aren't enforceable against CHL holders because no 30.06 signs are posted.

Without diving too far into the "P" topic, it appears that Alex Pareene frequently lampoons the political right in his/her editorials; another one is titled "The right's weird Michelle Obama problem". If the honorable Gov. Good Hair had tried to temporarily undo the no-weapons policy at Reliant Stadium for his rally, I'm sure the hysterics would be much more shrill. (Where's my "Roll Eyes" smiley when I need it?)

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Technically, written notice must comply with the 30.06 language. However, I would not want to be the guy to go into court and argue that the letter in Salon was not adequate notice re: CHL. I think that is likely a loser.