Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
What's obvious should be evident in the listing of State and Municipal laws available for every State of the Union on line...let's do some research, shall we?
We shall beging with the State in question...from the Oklahoma State official website, located at
http://www.oar.state.ok.us/viewhtml/612_1-11-16.htm
Assigning parking spaces. Where employee parking is available, qualified employees with disabilities will be assigned spaces convenient to an accessible entrance to the assigned worksite. The assignment of parking spaces is based on medical certification of an individual's need for parking accommodations. Spaces will be designated in such a way that they in no way stigmatize the employee with the disability."
WHERE EMPLOYEE PARKING IS AVAILABLE?
DON'T THESE IDIOTS IN THE OKLAHOMA STATE GOVERNMENT KNOW THAT EMPLOYEE PARKING IS REQUIRED BY LAW?
You screwed up, I can prove that you lied simply by going to each and every State website.
You lied, and now it's obvious.
591 by Luis Gonzalez
This is Texas Bub... not likely.
Abstract: (3)If parking spaces are provided for self-parking by employees or visitors, or both, accessible spaces shall be provided in each such parking area. (4) The number of accessible parking spaces must comply with the parking requirements in ADAAG s. 4.6.3, access aisles must be placed adjacent to accessible parking spaces; however, two accessible parking spaces may share a common access aisle. -- Source
"If parking spaces are provided for self-parking by employees...?"
ANOTHER STATE THAT DOESN'T KNOW THE LAW!!!!
CAN YOU IMAGINE THIS CRAP?
Can you give me a hint at what States require employers BY LAW to provide for employee parking?
I'll keep looking but I thought that since you seem to be an expert on the issue you could give me a hand with this "obvious" law that you keep harping about.
There wouldn't be a question about whether employee parking was available or not if employee parking was required by law, wouldn't there?
You are drowning here, and you know it.
Many Texas cities have their local ordinances posted to the Internet using several different legal libraries. These ordinances were searched using one word, “firearm.” Of the roughly 150 cities searched, the results were shocking.
64 local governments were discovered to have a total of 79 ordinances that appear to violate the state Firearm Preemption Law. Many of these laws were obviously passed since the advent of the Concealed Handgun Law, in an effort to thwart legislative intent by regulating CHL’s on a local level. Others, particularly those dealing only with parks, are probably just old laws that need updating.
Here is a synopsis of each of these local ordinances:
Flagrant Violations:
Alvin – § 2-20.1 – Bans carry on city owned or leased property. Specifically bans CHL. Includes city parks “insofar as legally authorized.” Mandates placement of 30.05 signs. Authorizes City Manager to deny entry or continued presence to all persons possessing concealed handguns or any type of firearm, including prosecution for criminal trespass.
Amarillo – makes unlawful to carry a firearm into or in any city building. CHL’s are listed as “not a defense to prosecution.” Exceptions are made for anyone with written authorization of City Police Chief.
Austin – § 10-9-2 orders the City Manager to post 30.05 signs on all city property and instructs city staff to verbally notify those found in violation.
Balch Springs – § 54-63(b)(1) specifically bans license holders from carrying on city property.
Beaumont – § 18-7-5 bans entry onto a vehicle of Beaumont municipal transit carrying a handgun or other firearm. Makes no exception for CHL’s.
Canyon – § 130.19bans carry and possession of concealed handguns, regardless of whether or not the person has a CHL. Mandates placements of signs citing “City Ordinance 683.”
Columbus – § 46-32 makes unlawful the carry of a handgun onto city premises, regardless of whether or not the person has a license.
Coppell – Sec. 9-3-2 specifically bans “license holders” from carrying on “city premises” and the premises of any employer who has banned his premises. Orders City Manager to post “appropriate signage.”
Corpus Christi – § 33-79 makes unlawful a person carrying a firearm, who enters or remains in the premises of the city. Defines premises as all city properties, and adjoining parking areas. Exempts only public streets, sidewalks and parks. Give a defense to prosecution to a CHL holder leaving his gun in his car in a city-owned parking lot. Also, strangely, only offers a defense to prosecution to its own police officers, not an exception. Also offers a defense to prosecution for “gun shows or other events” at the Bayfront Plaza Convention Center, the site of the largest FNRA dinner in the nation.
El Paso – § 10.12.020 (C) authorizes the mayor to place 30.05 signs on all properties owned, leased, controlled, operated, used or managed by the city.
Friendswood – § 58-58 makes unlawful to carry a firearm in a park, with no exception made for CHL’s. Same § also redefines firearms far in excess of state law.
§ 54-50 (c) authorizes the city manager to post all city properties off-limits with 30.05 signs. City employees are also authorized to give verbal notice to violators. Those refusing to leave are to be prosecuted for criminal trespass.
Galveston – § 24-16 makes unlawful for any person to carry a concealed handgun on premises owned or operated by the city. CHL’s are specifically listed as being “NOT a defense to prosecution.
Greenville – § 5.1204 makes unlawful the carry of a firearm on the premises of the city. Mandates use of signs according to state law, Article 4413(29ee). No exception is made for CHL holders.
Houston – § 2-415 authorizes the mayor to establish regulations on possession of weapons on city premises. Cites PC 30.05 for prosecution.
§ 12-24 contains gun show provisions calling for registration by serial number of all guns entering a show, and removal of firing pins or trigger locks on all guns in the show. This ordinance fell victim to a permanent injunction in 1997, but is still listed on the books of the City of Houston. Was the subject for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case High Caliber Gun & Knife Shows v. City of Houston.
Kennedale – § 12.6 bans entrance to any city property or building by any person carrying a “deadly weapon.” Specifically includes CHL’s. City Manager is authorized to post signage indicating that violators will be prosecuted under criminal trespass statute. “Content, size, print and other aspects of any sign shall be at the absolute discretion of the city manager.”
§ 16-31 bans use or carry of firearms in city parks with no provisions for CHL’s or discharge in self-protection.
LaMarque – § 11.61 makes unlawful to carry a firearm in any city building, regardless of whether or not the person holds a license. Exception made only for peace officers.
LaPorte – § 42-32 prohibits carrying of a firearm on any property or in any building of the city.
Laredo – § 21-152 bans firearm possession at city parks, public meetings, political rallies, parades, and school events. Exception is made for law enforcement and security guards, but not for locations legal for CHL holders, such as parks.
§ 21-193 bans firearms possession in a “school zone.” No definition is offered of what constitutes a school zone.
Lewisville – § 8-2 bans concealed handguns from all city buildings, regardless of whether or not the person has a license.
Longview – § 25-24 declares entry of persons with concealed handguns to be criminal trespass. Exceptions are made for peace officers and gun show visitors, but not for CHL holders.
McAllen – § 70-14 bans concealed handguns on all city-owned premises. Authorizes city manager to post 30.05 notices.
McKinney – § 20-2 makes unlawful for any person to carry a firearm in any city building, regardless of whether or not the person has a CHL.
Pampa – § 14-40 makes unlawful carrying a firearm in any city building, regardless of whether or not the person holds a license.
Plano – § 14-5 bans carry in all city building, specifically citing § 30.06 of the Penal Code, mandating signs on all buildings.
Port Arthur – § 62-64 bans carry of a firearm in any city building or on city transportation, with no exception for CHL’s. Discharge statute in § 62-62 makes the same provision against carrying a firearm in “any properties or buildings in the corporate limits.”
§ 70-66 bans carry of a firearm in all city parks, with no exception made for CHL’s.
Rosenberg – § 18-70 bans specifically bans CHL’s from city buildings. Ironically, it fails to mention unlicensed individuals.
San Antonio – § 21.157 bans carrying or possessing weapons from all city properties, to include parking areas, but excluding parks, sidewalks and streets.
§ 21. 153 bans carry in parks, with no exception made for CHL’s.
§ 21.23 bans public gun shows from city properties.
San Marcos – § 58.117 bans firearms, whether licensed or not, from city premises.
Sherman – § 8-5 bans firearms from the city cemetery with no exception made for CHL’s.
§ 23-182 specifically bans CHL’s from all city property, with an exception made only for LE.
Texarkana – § 15-66 bans firearms from on public transportation with no exception made for CHL’s. (Possible multi-state jurisdiction problem here)
Texas City – § 78-81 bans firearms from city properties and parks, with no exception made for CHL’s.
§ 82-4 specifically bans CHL’s from city parks.
Watauga – § 8.901 mandates posting of 30.06 signs.
§ 1.209 prohibits carry of a firearm in a park, with no exception made for CHL holders.
Webster – § 58-82 bans all firearms from city premises, with no exception made for CHL’s
West Lake Hills – § 54-31 bans all firearms from city owned premises with no exception made for CHL’s.
White Oak – § 50-53 bans concealed weapons from city premises with no exception made for CHL’s
§ 50-54 authorizes placement of signage about city ordinance.
§ 54-55 bans carry or possession of firearms at parks with no exception made for CHL’s.
Local governments decide parking laws.
You're drowning in your own overBOLD invective.
Patterson, the Republican nominee for the Texas Land Commissioner office being vacated by David Dewhurst, explained in detail the history of the Texas Concealed Carry law, the history of post-civil war gun bans, and the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1876?s near-unanimous opposition to such bans. Patterson went on to explain that all of the limitations on gun possession enacted by cities, counties, transit systems and other Texas entities since the passage of the Texas Concealed-Carry law are illegal and unconstitutional.
The Civil Liberties Defense Foundation is currently suing for injunctive relief against such illegal regulations by Houston Metro. Patterson suggested that since all the trial judges in Houston are Republican, there was a high likelihood that such a suit would prevail at the trial level.
Patterson stressed that the Conceal-Carry law allows private property owners to ban handguns on their private property. Expressing his belief that the opponents of the Concealed-Carry law had been proven wrong, Patterson asked the audience "How many of you have been involved in a shoot-out at a four-way stop?"Source
If your gun is in your car, and your car is ON their property, they can throw your butt out.
Building and Permitting
Florida Statewide Building Code
The State of Florida has adopted a new statewide building code which became effective on March 01, 2002. Information on the Statewide Building Code and a may be found at the Florida Building Commission website. Additional building codes and standards information and practices can be found by contacting Randy Fowler, Building Official at (941) 316-19966, or MyFlorida.com.
My gun is on MY property, not theirs. Still eluding that demented little mind of yours, isn't it?
What's eluding you is that their property is THEIR property, and ACCORDING TO TEXAS STATE LAW, PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS CAN BAN GUNS FROM THEIR PROPERTY.
If you are found with a gun while on the property of an individual who has exercised his right under Texas law to ban GUNS from from his or her property, you will be removed for trespassing, AND YOU MIGHT BE PROSECUTED.
Crying to the mods?
I'll keep looking but I thought that since you seem to be an expert on the issue you could give me a hand with this "obvious" law that you keep harping about.
603 Luis Gonzalez
Cry? -- Not me.
Look, you obviously aren't smart enough to understand, so just give it up.
Profanity is not allowed. If you must cuss, at least block a character or two out. I couldn't care, but others here do. Including Jim.
Good luck...
What?!?!?
YOU JUST VIOLATED MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH BY NOTIFYING THE OWNERSHIP!
What a hypocrite.
Done with you, now that your lying and your hypocrisy have been exposed.
But if Jim boots me out, as he's done in the past, I won't be seeking to use the force of government to violate his property rights.
The discussion in this thread is centered about what rules a property owner may set, and whether he is allowed to enforce them.
Jim is allowed to set the rules, and he is allowed to enforce them by booting anyone out who breaks them...but he doesn't have to do it if he doesn't want to.
Property law explained in a nutshell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.