TexasCHLforum.com

Boxerrider wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 3:36 pm The senate has time to address this now, correct???

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:37 pm Ah, here we go:

Whelp, this COVID 19 business is not going to make Paxton v. City of Austin courthouse sign litigation get resolved any faster...

Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:25 am

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?

The judge ruled that there was only evidence of violations during 6 days.

ELB wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:34 am

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 lost they wouldn’t want to wait so long I bet.

IIRC the fine starts accumulating 15 days after the OAG issues (or the City receives) the OAG's violation letter (and the City has not cured the issue). I believe the OAG's letter was issued in July of 2016, but I don't have access to it right now.

In this case the judge has ruled that the City is not in violation by forbidding licensed carry in the non-court part of the building when court is in session, but it can be in violation when court is NOT in session. I believe the OAG still has to show that the city was improperly preventing licensed carry when the court was not in session, and if the OAG makes that case, a fine should follow. It will be interesting to see how that is calculated.

WildRose wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:14 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:08 am As a reminder, the AG and the City of Austin meet in a hearing/trial on this coming Monday, 17 Sep, at 0900 in the 261st District Court in Travis County (Austin). I would like to go sit in on that, but really can't afford to take the time off. If there's anyone here near Austin with time to go, it would be nice to get a first hand report.

As far as I can tell from the previous ruling by the judge, the following issues will be argued:

1. Did the security guards provide an oral communication that meets the requirements of 30.06 (and did so improperly)? Or in the judge's words, "...at what point does an oral statement give rise to notice and criminal liability for the license holder." This is very interesting question, and I think is potentially much more of an impact to licensed carry than whether an entire court house can be made off limits, because the answer will likely apply to private property "oral communications" as well.


2. If & when the City of Austin improperly denied entrance to City Hall to LTC holders. She has already ruled/opined that while the City may place the entire building off limits to licensed carry, not just the court room (or school activity), the City can do so ONLY when court (or sponsored activity) is in session. Since nothing in the record indicated when court/activity was or was not in session, I assume the AG will bring evidence of this. If she finds that licensed carry was prohibited by written or oral communication when court/activity was not in session, then it appears to me fines can be assessed.

As the law is written I don't see how she can justify allowing the entire building to be posted even when court is in session.

A plain reading of the statute and the AG's guidance letters says otherwise. How can a judge make a ruling that is in direct conflict of the law as written and expect it to stand?

ScottDLS wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

ELB wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:Very disappointed in the Elgin ISD ruling.
That could create the slippery slope for others wanting to claim exclusion based on being an educational institution or school district.

I find your comment a bit baffling, since I see little doubt that forbidding concealed (and now, open) carry on elementary, junior, and high school districts (without permission of the district) was exactly what the legislature intended. I don't like it, but an independent school district is precisely what the law meant. There is no slope at this point, for the AG to say otherwise would have been in direct contravention of the law. I'm even puzzled that someone went to the trouble to even make a complaint about a ISD administration building.

Read his letter. These comments, "(opining that FERPA applies to student records at both the state and local level because "educational agency or institution" includes any public or private agency or institution that receives federal funding under an applicable education program, without regard to whether it enrolls students") "

So any agency that gets federal funding from an education program can now be considered a school? So what if a zoo gets money? Or libraries, or … ? See the slope I'm talking about?

I believe the intent of the was SCHOOLS… not all buildings supporting them like bus barns or administrative offices completely separate from a school.

I don't think the opinion goes that far. When the letter refers to "applicable education program" that could mean "applicable to SCHOOLS". Like Head Start for Pre-K SCHOOLS, not daycares (which wouldn't qualify).

What I read from the opinion is that the ISD administration buildings are part of the SCHOOL system and supporting it, therefore covered. I don't agree with it, but I can see the reasoning. The Fort Worth Zoo might be off limits if it was OWNED by FWISD AND used as part of the curriculum, but just because they "educate" people there and sometimes have school activities, doesn't make them a SCHOOL. I predict they lose.

casp625 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

casp625 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

casp625 wrote: Yes but the term amusement park does not apply to any sidewalk or walkways, per statute

True, but those sidewalks or walkways must be public. All the sidewalks and walkways "inside" the amusement zoo are not public.

You sure about that?

(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

It's not spelled out, but I'm pretty sure that the intent of that is directed to public or private areas that are accessible to the public even when closed. The areas we are debating about here are inside the park and accessible only when the park is open.

Intent vs plain meaning is how the zoo got itself the amusement park designation. And thus, plain meaning states amusement park does not apply to any public or private sidewalk or walkway. So even if 30.0X posted, 46.035 only applies to the buildings in the amusement park.

Simple solution: stay on the walkways and sidewalks and 46.035 doesn't apply in the zoo, erm, amusement park. Unless you can point out in the statute that states otherwise.

casp625 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

casp625 wrote: Yes but the term amusement park does not apply to any sidewalk or walkways, per statute

True, but those sidewalks or walkways must be public. All the sidewalks and walkways "inside" the amusement zoo are not public.

You sure about that?

(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

casp625 wrote: Yes but the term amusement park does not apply to any sidewalk or walkways, per statute