A bill was introduced this past legislative session (83R) that would have done just that. It did not survive.
Yep, and heard mutterings that none other than Dan Patrick was responsible for that not passing?
You are obviously very well versed with this, and other CHL issues. With regard to my first post:
§ 39.03
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful.
Even in the absence of that ill fated law, and granted that lawyers blur distinctions and game the legal system as a business model, it appears that a member of a city council has what could be construed, once put on notice, as liability in this matter?
The use of the specific word "unlawful" appears to be intentional. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "unlawful" as not authorized by law. Posting these signs on city property without taking the exceptions into account is specifically not "authorized by law".
I'm aware that conjecture and hypothetical's will get you what you paid for, but a thorough understanding of all the nuances could be key to getting something done by putting all these rascals on notice in one fell swoop at State level.
Although I'm considering writing both my representatives and our city council about this issue, what I don't want to do is poke a stick and make matters worse before understanding those nuances, and hoped that some discussion can bring up things that the average citizen, which I am, is not aware.
ITMT, thanks for your patience.