TexasCHLforum.com

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:44 am

dlh wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:15 am Well, we finally received a ruling today. Was disappointed the court did not go along with the larger requested AG fines as a deterrent to other
cities refusing to follow the law:

https://search.txcourts.gov/Docket.aspx ... 07/22/2021

LTC holders now have case law supporting the argument about the non-applicability of non-compliant 30.06/7 signs.

The court's decision on the "Plea to the Jurisdiction on the Etching Claim" makes it VERY clear that it would have to have the exact wording and punctuation proscribed by the statute to be effective notification. They err in stating that it would have to be either English or Spanish as that is not what the law states for a posted sign.

RicoTX wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?

C-dub wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:26 am If only the city kept accumulating a fine for each day they were in violation while this process continued. If that were the case and the fine was due when the decision made and they list they wouldn’t want to wait so long I bet.

The city claims that guns aren't allowed at City Hall because community court and teen court are held there on occassion. The judge agreed with the city that the gun ban should include the entire building not just the part where court is held.

“That means that basically a government could designate a room way off in the corner of the building as a court and then say 'ah ha we have a court therefore our entire building is off-limits,’” he said

But the judge agreed with some other arguments the Attorney General made -- for example the ban should only be in effect on the days court is held.

stars200 wrote:

joe817 wrote:I'm surprised that Austin isn't claiming that their building is not an amusement park.

Nice -- Claim the elevators as a rides, would just need to expand the property to 75 acres.