TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:A lot of taxpayer money was wasted also. Glad it turned out like it did.

After the case is fully over, including the AG suit, someone should serve an Open Records Request for all documents, audio/video records, emails, check requests/stubs, etc. related to this issue. Then give it to the media. Not me -- I do enough of these requests.

Chas.

That's a good idea. I'll consider doing it if I remember or it hits my radar at the appropriate time. I may need a little coaching on how to phrase the letter appropriately to get all the info.

A lot of taxpayer money was wasted also. Glad it turned out like it did.

G.A. Heath wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote: Jurors?

I hated having to lock my gun in the car serving jury duty in FTW.

But preemption needs top be in place. In Smith county, the juror parking is off-limits for firearms...even states it on the summons.

Assuming this is Smith County Texas. Unless it's federal property then the notice is invalid and may be in violation of the fines for signs law.

Smith County doesn't seem to be too concerned about laws regarding LTC and signs.

Roy, that's a good point. I think they are some of the ones that should be allowed the most since they are the ones issuing a verdict with whom one of the two sides will be unhappy.

KLB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

KLB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I'm just curious how much you internet lawyers charge per hour.

Sorry you didn't get the joke.

I liked the joke, but I wasn't wearing my glasses. I thought the emoji I picked was smiling.

SewTexas,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. First I've heard of it.

https://slappedintexas.com/primer/

Jusme wrote:Are courthouses, in their entirety, on the list of places that we plan on trying to remove from prohibited places?

All places that law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms should apply to LTC holders. The only places they have to disarm are secured portions of jails and prisons. Courthouses, including court rooms, even off duty, police can carry either openly or concealed. TABC 51% locations, LEOs can carry. Professional, collegiate, and high school sporting events are ok for LEOs. All Texas school district premises, on duty or off are ok for police to carry. There is no sound reason to restrict those of us with LTC from carrying in these locations also. We have proven ourselves to be even more law abiding than LEOs, and it is only the prevailing attitudes of those who think only the police should be armed, that have kept us from having that freedom. Of course that still only applies to LTC holders, and doesn't touch on Constitutional Carry.

If I recall correctly, Charles indicated his position is those directly involved in the court proceeding or related to those that are involved should not be allowed to carry in the courtrooms. That is off the top of my head and my recollection may be off some.

I can accept that restriction as I know court cases can get very heated and emotions can run very high.

JALLEN wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Jallen,
Your example of paying fees with company money goes to my point. You were spending company money, not yours. You were also getting paid to manage those lawsuits along with other duties. The government entity is paying attorney's fees with other people's money.

The defendant, which is a private citizen, has to pay out of his pocket even though he is following the law to a T without taking advantage of a "loophole".

In the insurance company case, it was money I was responsible for. In the other cases, it was money that belonged to a company I owned all or in part. The point isn't the money, but the responsibility, a concept that seems to be gradually fading from our DNA.

Let me leave you with the wisdom of a great man. ""Do right, and risk the consequences." -- Sam Houston

Here is a quote you may want to consider.

Jallen,
Your example of paying fees with company money goes to my point. You were spending company money, not yours. You were also getting paid to manage those lawsuits along with other duties. The government entity is paying attorney's fees with other people's money.

The defendant, which is a private citizen, has to pay out of his pocket even though he is following the law to a T without taking advantage of a "loophole".

JALLEN wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I realize you weren't a Texas lawyer, but a private citizen is hardly a proper party to this dec action. It should have been filed solely against the AG, if at all. Holcomb is not in a position to sue or otherwise enforce the statute at issue. Only the AG can bring suit.

Yes, this lawsuit is garbage and it was filed solely to chill citizens from following the statutorily required procedures. Otherwise, it would have been filed against the AG in response to his position on the issue.

Chas.

Can someone sue the AG before the AG has done anything, other than publish an opinion?

The private party had at least taken official action which generated the dispute.

The ruling of a trial court is hardly precedential, and will certainly be appealed.

BTW, I filed a complaint with the AG with respect to the county here, following correct procedure. It is pending.

Would your opinion about the government entity suing the private citizen that followed the law be different if the entity that you complained about sued you for filing the complaint?

Nope. For one thing, the signs I dealt with were 30.06 signs, not the "loophole" Waller Co. thinks they have discovered.

I, and the companies I was responsible for, were sued hundreds of times, to no ill effect, and some occasional amusement, although not without some cost.

I wouldn't look forward to it, exactly, but when you go into battle, it is never without some cost. Look at all the aggravation Charles endures in his battles. These are disputed issues, being fought over and will continue to be fought over for a long, long time.

Harry Truman taught, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I intend this with all due respect. Your response comes across as someone with that makes or made their money from legal fees and lawsuits and not someone that has to write the checks for the legal fees. It's been my experience, the two perspectives rarely see eye to eye when it comes to confidence and trust in our legal system.

A government entity that is trying to exploit a "loophole" in order to circumvent a law and then suing a private citizen that is following the law is egregious and is something only a government employee or an attorney could support.

Robbing a bank and then trying to say it is just a low doc express loan or withdrawal is still robbery. A government entity denying a LTC entry into a premises that is not a courtroom or court related office is still against the law regardless what tortured interpretation one uses to try and justify it.

The hearing and floor discussion/debate made it very clear what the legislators intended. Waller County, Travis and other counties are just thumbing their noses at the citizens and legislators.

KLB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I'm just curious how much you internet lawyers charge per hour.

Sorry you didn't get the joke.

JALLEN wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I realize you weren't a Texas lawyer, but a private citizen is hardly a proper party to this dec action. It should have been filed solely against the AG, if at all. Holcomb is not in a position to sue or otherwise enforce the statute at issue. Only the AG can bring suit.

Yes, this lawsuit is garbage and it was filed solely to chill citizens from following the statutorily required procedures. Otherwise, it would have been filed against the AG in response to his position on the issue.

Chas.

Can someone sue the AG before the AG has done anything, other than publish an opinion?

The private party had at least taken official action which generated the dispute.

The ruling of a trial court is hardly precedential, and will certainly be appealed.

BTW, I filed a complaint with the AG with respect to the county here, following correct procedure. It is pending.

Would your opinion about the government entity suing the private citizen that followed the law be different if the entity that you complained about sued you for filing the complaint?

Lynyrd wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I'm just curious how much you internet lawyers charge per hour.

No joke! We may need you!

I'm holding out for a legit big case.

I'm just curious how much you internet lawyers charge per hour.

It appears it has been removed from Scribd.


This comment is also worth noting.

Holcomb told Breitbart Texas he is being represented by Houston lawyer T. Edwin Walker and he describes him as “an independent program attorney with [Pre-paid legal service].” Holcomb says while “Mr. Holcomb is a member of [Pre-paid legal service], such a suit as this is not part of their coverage. Mr. Walker has graciously offered to represent him regardless.”

I wonder if his offer is to represent him is pro bono?