Ken Paxton withdraws statement on gun ban in State Fair lawsuit

Sign up for The Brief, the Texas Tribune's daily newsletter that keeps readers up to date on the most important news in Texas.

Attorney General Ken Paxton this week withdrew an eight-year-old legal opinion that had given private nonprofits the green light to ban guns on land they lease from a city – a move that comes as Paxton has challenged the nonprofit State Fair of Texas's gun ban.

Paxton, a Republican who staunchly opposes gun restrictions, sued the city of Dallas and State Fair officials last month, arguing that the State Fair of Texas violated state law that broadly prohibits local governments from restricting firearms on property they own or lease. Fair Park, the site where the fair is held, is owned by the city of Dallas and leased to the nonprofit organization that operates the fair. The event is scheduled to run from Sept. 27 to Oct. 20.

In court filings, Paxton argued that the private fair organizer is acting “under the authority” of the city and cannot ban guns on the grounds. City and fair officials stressed that the city has nothing to do with how the nonprofit runs the event, nor did it play a role in this year's gun ban — making the policy fair game, they argue. Both entities say the attorney general's reasoning contradicts an opinion he issued in 2016 that said private companies could post gun-banning signs on state-leased land without fear of civil penalties, as long as said government “has no control over the decision to post such signs.”

Later in 2016, an official in Paxton's office cited this view when he concluded that signs prohibiting firearms could be placed at the entrances to the Fort Worth Zoo because, although the zoo is on city property, the city has hired a nonprofit corporation to oversee the zoo's operations and management.

The attorney general's website says the 2016 opinion — which is not legally binding — has been withdrawn “pending Paxton's forthcoming opinion,” in which he responds to a question from two Republican lawmakers who questioned last month whether the State Fair of Texas is “jointly operated” with the city and therefore prohibited from banning firearms on the fairgrounds. A spokesman for Paxton's office did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

In their letter to Paxton seeking his opinion, State Senator Mayes Middleton of Galveston and State Representative Dustin Burrows of Lubbock argued that the city “exercises significant control over the operation of the fair” and is “intertwined” with the private organizer.

Attorneys for the State Fair of Texas denied the claim, writing to Paxton that it was based on “false assumptions” about the nonprofit's relationship with the city.

“There is no overlap in the governance structure of SFOT and the city,” the nonprofit's attorneys wrote. “SFOT is currently governed by a 20-member board of directors, none of whom are government employees, government officials or government appointees. SFOT is also financially independent and receives no money from the city to host the fair.”

The fair's lawyers also pointed to a previous court ruling that found the city had “no influence over the internal decisions of the SFOT” and dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the State Fair was essentially a “shell company” for the city.

An official from Paxton's office wrote a letter to Dallas' acting city manager Kimberly Tolbert last month threatening legal action, noting that if the State Fair relied on Paxton's 2016 opinion to implement its gun ban, “that reliance was misplaced.” The letter from Paxton's director of administrative law, Ernest Garcia, did not further explain why the opinion was not applicable in this case.

Fair officials have said their gun ban is aimed at making the event safer after a shooting at the fair last year that left three people injured by gunfire. GOP state lawmakers have urged the fair to change course, saying the policy is misguided and has the opposite effect. Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) said last month he would avoid the fair because the gun ban would make it a “free-fire zone for criminals” that is too dangerous to attend.