Unenforceable Austin gun ordinances

[Bithabus]

§ 9-6-2 FIREARMS PROHIBITED ON CITY PREMISES.

Except as provided in Sections 9-6-4 (Exception for Peace or Security Officers, or Retired Officers), 9-6-5 (Exception for Gun Shows), and 9-6-6 (Exception for Shipping at Airport), a person may not enter or remain on City premises if the person is carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm.
Source: 1992 Code Section 10-9-2(A); Ord. 031023-13; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. 050303-17.
§ 9-6-3 NOTICE OF PROHIBITION.

(A) The city manager shall post notice at each city premise that a person carrying a firearm:
(1) may not enter city premises; and
(2) must immediately leave city premises.
(B) The notice posted under this section shall include a statement, in English and Spanish, to read substantially as follows:
A person may not enter these premises while carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm. A person who enters these premises carrying a firearm may be subject to prosecution under Section 30.05 (Criminal Trespass) of the Texas Penal Code.
Source: 1992 Code Sections 10-9-2(A) and (B); Ord. 031023-13; Ord. 031211-11.

Anyone hear of enforcement action being taken for violation of this ordinance? Similar to the SA ordinances, this is blatantly in violation of Local GC 229.001.

 

[Texas1911]

That code was written before the CHL laws took effect.

30.05 is not applicable, however if they post 30.06 then it is. Honestly I don't think public places funded by tax payer money should be allowed to post 30.06.

 

[M. Sage]

I haven't heard of any action on either. I will say that the Tax Assessor's office here in SA has metal detectors installed, apparently to prevent CHL holders carrying into the office, in spite of what you've pointed out.

 

[M. Sage]

That code was written before the CHL laws took effect.

30.05 is not applicable, however if they post 30.06 then it is. Honestly I don't think public places funded by tax payer money should be allowed to post 30.06.

I recall TX having a preemption law. Does this predate that law? If not, this ordinance is just as dead for basically the same reason.

 

[Texas1911]

I haven't heard of any action on either. I will say that the Tax Assessor's office here in SA has metal detectors installed, apparently to prevent CHL holders carrying into the office, in spite of what you've pointed out.

How would that prevent anything ... the gun is still concealed. You used to have to walk through the detectors at the capital prior to the "other" line.

I think it'd be fun to do that.

"Step Through Sir"
*BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP*
"Do you have any metal objects sir?"
"Yes, a Glock 19 on my right hip"

LOL.

 

[Texas1911]

I recall TX having a preemption law. Does this predate that law? If not, this ordinance is just as dead for basically the same reason.

They made 30.06 to substantiate the 30.05 signage, but in doing so they negated all of the original signage.

 

[M. Sage]

How would that prevent anything ... the gun is still concealed. You used to have to walk through the detectors at the capital prior to the "other" line.

I think it'd be fun to do that.

"Step Through Sir"
*BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP*
"Do you have any metal objects sir?"
"Yes, a Glock 19 on my right hip"

LOL.

The point is intimidation more than anything.

They made 30.06 to substantiate the 30.05 signage, but in doing so they negated all of the original signage.

My point is that preemption would prevent this ordinance by itself as preemption laws only allow the State to make laws in certain areas. In this case firearms law. If Texas preemption predates this ordinance, then it falls to that alone. It's how we killed the voter-approved handgun ban in San Francisco.

 

[Bithabus]

That code was written before the CHL laws took effect.

It's unenforceable because of preemption.

30.05 is not applicable, however if they post 30.06 then it is.

No it's not. Government property can't post legally enforceable 30.06 unless the property is already listed in 46.03 or 46.035

Honestly I don't think public places funded by tax payer money should be allowed to post 30.06.

They're not, which is awesome.

 

[Bithabus]

My point is that preemption would prevent this ordinance by itself as preemption laws only allow the State to make laws in certain areas. In this case firearms law. If Texas preemption predates this ordinance, then it falls to that alone.

Interesting. Ordinances already on the books before preemption, are still enforceable? That would be a horrible mistake of wording the preemption legislation.

 

[Bithabus]

This is what makes the ordinances in Austin and SA unenforceable:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

TITLE 7. REGULATION OF LAND USE, STRUCTURES, BUSINESSES, AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

SUBTITLE A. MUNICIPAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY

CHAPTER 229. MISCELLANEOUS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES


Sec. 229.001. FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:
(1) require residents or public employees to be armed for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or another lawful purpose;
(2) regulate the discharge of firearms within the limits of the municipality;
(3) regulate the use of property, the location of a business, or uses at a business under the municipality's fire code, zoning ordinance, or land-use regulations as long as the code, ordinance, or regulations are not used to circumvent the intent of Subsection (a) or Subdivision (5) of this subsection;
(4) regulate the use of firearms in the case of an insurrection, riot, or natural disaster if the municipality finds the regulations necessary to protect public health and safety;
(5) regulate the storage or transportation of explosives to protect public health and safety, except that 25 pounds or less of black powder for each private residence and 50 pounds or less of black powder for each retail dealer are not subject to regulation; or
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.
(c) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(6) does not apply if the firearm is in or is carried to or from an area designated for use in a lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting event and the firearm is of the type commonly used in the activity.
(d) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(4) does not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, Sec. 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.07, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Renumbered from Sec. 215.001 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 12.002(10), eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 18, Sec. 5, eff. April 27, 2007.

 

[Texas1911]

The only place I've seen 30.06 posted is at Brackenridge Hospital. Never at a state or city building, and the cops aren't into enforcing stuff that they know won't stick.

 

[Bithabus]

The only place I've seen 30.06 posted is at Brackenridge Hospital. Never at a state or city building, and the cops aren't into enforcing stuff that they know won't stick.

Right, public hospitals can post 30.06 because they are listed in 46.035.

I'm alarmed now by Sage's point that so-called Texas "premption" apparently only prohibits municipalities from adopting anti-gun legislation. Would follow from that that ordinances passed before preemption are still enforceable, which would defeat the purpose of having a State preemption law.

 

[Randman]

will need a translator for this thread..LOL.. Engrish man, Engrish!!

 

[Texas1911]

Right, public hospitals can post 30.06 because they are listed in 46.035.

I'm alarmed now by Sage's point that so-called Texas "premption" apparently only prohibits municipalities from adopting anti-gun legislation. Would follow from that that ordinances passed before preemption are still enforceable, which would defeat the purpose of having a State preemption law.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. ... so the preemption law was originated in 1987, but I can't find a copy of the original.

 

[Bithabus]

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. ... so the preemption law was originated in 1987, but I can't find a copy of the original.

That whole section was originated in 1987 but it could have been amended significantly since then to change the meaning. The part banning cities from "adopting..." could have been added recently.

"Adopt" needs to be changed to "enforce".

 

[Texas1911]

City property extends to parks and other tangible land assets ... so it is applicable to the carrying of long arms openly on city parks?

(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person
other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:

(A) public park;

(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or
other governmental body;

(C) political rally, parade, or official
political meeting; or

(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or"
professional athletic event."

 

[Texas1911]

That whole section was originated in 1987 but it could have been amended significantly since then to change the meaning. The part banning cities from "adopting..." could have been added recently.

"Adopt" needs to be changed to "enforce".

Be nice if we could dig up the original somewheres.

 

[Bithabus]

City property extends to parks and other tangible land assets ... so it is applicable to the carrying of long arms openly on city parks?

(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person
other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:

(A) public park;

(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or
other governmental body;

(C) political rally, parade, or official
political meeting; or

(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or"
professional athletic event."

Yeah, unless you have a CHL. Even new ordinances can ban rifle carry in city parks by non-CHL holders.

 

[Bithabus]

Be nice if we could dig up the original somewheres.

Must be somewhere. I bet someone currently asleep knows.

 

[Texas1911]

Yeah, unless you have a CHL. Even new ordinances can ban rifle carry in city parks by non-CHL holders.

I'm an original Austinite ... I should be exempted on the grounds of not being from some communist shithole.