TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:

Jusme wrote:
That's never been an issue at jails/prisons for LEOs. .

I would wager that there has been an issue or two. :) It's just that that risk of having a gun in close to inmates is greater, probably much greater, than the risk that some LEO is going to ND while disarming/rearming. But neither risk is zero.

In the case of a university or college, with the exception of maybe the MRI center, what they are really balancing is the risk of an ND while in the building/classroom/lab etc versus the risk of an ND while locking the gun up in a box. I think it is correct to judge the risk of ND while disarming/locking in a box/rearming is vastly greater than just leaving it in the holster while the carrier goes about his business.

In the dorms the calculation changes again, because the carrier is going to need to take the gun off sooner or later, and he needs a place to stash it.

TexasTornado wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

KLB wrote:

dawgfishboy wrote:Is providing a secure place to lock it up while in the building too much to ask (or a bad idea)? Some of us prefer to ride mass transit vs driving downtown when summonsed.

A nice idea, but probably a nonstarter for the same reason airports no longer have lockers. It's place to leave a bomb.

Not if what you put in there is monitored.

I know many of the campuses refused to provide storage because 1: you'd have to un conceal to store - and 2: the added risk of potential accidental discharge while unholstering and reholstering a weapon.

G.A. Heath wrote:While I may not be a lawyer I suspect that this gives Holcomb's attorney a major weapon against Waller County. If nothing else it should allow him to demand a stay pending the outcome of the AG's actions, and should even get a dismissal of some (probably all) claims made by Waller County now or after a decision is made in any suit the AG brings against Waller County.

Waller County might try to get a stay or injunction against the suit the AG's office will file by claiming one of their claims in this suit may having bearing on anything the AG's office might bring against them, but I would think a judge would decide that the the claim in the Holcomb case lacks standing in light of the AG's actions as the government code says that is where the issues of the signs being compliant or not is to be decided. Additionally any suit the AG brings should get priority as a decision there can lead to fines that are cumulative over time.

dawgfishboy wrote:Is providing a secure place to lock it up while in the building too much to ask (or a bad idea)? Some of us prefer to ride mass transit vs driving downtown when summonsed.

mojo84 wrote: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.

Russell wrote:My wife found this older news story, which really points to the kind of character the district attorney in Waller County has: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 525581.php

This guy needs to go. He's gotten too power hungry and clearly feels invincible.

mojo84 wrote:SewTexas,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. First I've heard of it.

https://slappedintexas.com/primer/

mojo84 wrote:

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.

Abraham wrote:I've read a ton of detail per this thread to the point, for me at least, I'm confused. (not that difficult to confuse me as I'm rather long in the tooth and bent...)

With that said: Am I correct in thinking that 'yes', we have an attempt to chill proper, that's is to say, lawful complaining by a governmental entity?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

JALLEN wrote:This is the ordinary declarayory relief action, the form whenever there is a dispute over interpretation of a written instrument, etc.

While the complaint against Holcomb does not expressly name him as the complainant, there is no doubt that is who filed it. If it turns out otherwise, the case will be dismissed because there is no dispute, effectively, with Holcomb.

I'm not conversant with civil procedure in Texas enough to evaluate this procedurally, the form of pleading, etc.

A District Judge is not presdisposed to rule in anyone's favor, the county or otherwise. There are hundreds of cases where political subdivisions have lost cases against ordinary citizens when the facts and law supported that result. If a judge has reason to feel otherwise, (s)he must recuse him or herself. I have known of cases where, because of strong local feelings, or ties to the community of one party, the entire local bench recused themselves, and the matter was heard by a visiting judge. Judges have a more than ordinary interest in courtroom security, of course. That is likely more of an influence for an individual judge than anything else.

Eventually, courts will interpret these provisions. It will very likely be the Texas Supreme Court to have the final say.

It might have been cheaper for Holcomb to file a complaint in his county and leave it to others to file in their counties. "Don't want no trouble, don't start none."

The suit is utter garbage and suggesting that a person should not avail himself of a statutorily proscribed procedure to prevent continuing violation of Texas law by a governmental entity boggles the mind. BTW, I'm hardly a fan of Terry Holcomb.

Chas.

ELB wrote:

JALLEN wrote:You can't really assess this situation accurately unless you read the complaint(s) filed with the counties and the AG to see whether or not the complaints are accurate and proper on their face.

When a citizen files a complaint and takes it to the AG, that opens the issue to be resolved. We suppose the AG will review, then pursue, such complaints as appear to have factual and legal merit.

Filing a complaint which is egregiously meritless might justify a suit. Here it seems all the DA is seeking is akin to declaratory relief. The article says no money danages are sought.

Filing so many is a bit eccentric, I would think.

In reverse order:

I don't see anything eccentric about Texas Carry filing complaints in accordance with Texas law (assuming that's what you are referring to). That's activism, and it is something 2A supporters should engage in. The NRA and I believe TSRA have largely taken the tack of prioritizing legislative progress, which is fine as far as it goes, but there is a large field of battle in the courts, and for years the left (which I see as synonymous with anti-2A in this context) has very effectively pushed its agenda through the courts - both with court cases, often by organized groups (e.g. "PIRGs") and with appointment of friendly judges.

As far as this case goes -- I could read the entire complaint at the Breitbart post, and yes it is appalling. It is completely directed at interpretations of the law and taking exception to the AG's recent opinions. I didn't see a single word that alleged that Terry Holcomb had done anything that would merit a complaint. It doesn't even say that Terry Holcomb made a complaint about the signs! It simply names him as defendant and then says the local government received a complaint from "a citizen." That's it! It does also ask for attorneys' fees and "other relief". That may not be legal "damages" but it sounds like they want money out of Holcomb's pocket.

This really is appalling. I don't know what the legal way forward is, but morally speaking the officials in Waller county who threw this up should be canned. I would hope the judge tosses this immediately, and if not that the Texas AG could bigfoot his way into this (since he's actually the one they should be fighting with). The lawyers who put this together should be sanctioned (and fired from their current positions). I don't know if the officials involved are Republicans or Democrats, but if they are Republicans the local party should disown these guys. This is a huge abuse of their positions.

JALLEN wrote:You can't really assess this situation accurately unless you read the complaint(s) filed with the counties and the AG to see whether or not the complaints are accurate and proper on their face.

When a citizen files a complaint and takes it to the AG, that opens the issue to be resolved. We suppose the AG will review, then pursue, such complaints as appear to have factual and legal merit.

Filing a complaint which is egregiously meritless might justify a suit. Here it seems all the DA is seeking is akin to declaratory relief. The article says no money danages are sought.

Filing so many is a bit eccentric, I would think.