Remember that the City Of Austin removed the signs early in this process. They switched to verbally notifing CHL holders that they cannot enter while armed. So, the fine would not be based on the number of days that the signs were posted, but instead on days it could be proven that CHL holders were not allowed entry while armed.ELB wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:41 am Interesting ruling.
Recall the previously the judge ruled that even if there is a courtroom in the City Hall, licensed carry can NOT be prohibited if the court is not in session. I would not have gotten that from the parts of the law I have read, but it cuts against the impression that she is trying to be anti-carry. If followed state-wide, this ruling seems to actually opens up courthouses that consist solely of court rooms and court offices when court is not in session.
Her ruling that Austin can be fined only on the days when there's evidence that a licensed carrier attempted to enter and was illegally denied entrance is also not something I would have gotten from the law, but it parallels her ruling that entry can be prohibited only when court is in session. It makes me wonder if there is another legal principle at play here.
It appears if you want to really zing your local government for banning carry in a multi-use building, make sure you organize a posse to attempt entry at least once each day, and document the dickens out of it for use in court later.
Search found 1 match
Return to “30.06 Ruling Letters”
- Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:28 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: 30.06 Ruling Letters
- Replies: 229
- Views: 88694