Texas Carry Executive Director sued for filing signage complaint against Waller County

[K.Mooneyham]

So, I really don't understand why Waller County (or any other that posts similar stuff) wants to keep out LTCers. Do they really think that LTCers, who we all know have the lowest criminal incidence rate of any group in this state, are going to go to a courthouse armed with the sole intent of foul play? Of course, is it likely that the real criminals who actually commit violent crimes will stay out just because of those signs? Or, is it just a case of petty tyranny, where they want to remind the populace that the big cheeses are in charge and no one may "challenge" that status? Or is it something else I haven't been able to fathom? I really would like to know their rational behind it.

[BBYC]

Tyrants and their henchmen don't trust We the People.

It's really as simple as that.

[Soccerdad1995]

Tyrants and their henchmen don't trust We the People.

It's really as simple as that.

Petty people like to have their little fiefdoms. You see this with college professors who want to set rules for "their" classroom, or "their" office, and who chafe at the notion that these things do not actually belong to them, but are just the places where they do their jobs.

This also expands well beyond physical spaces. Petty people will try to exert control in any way they can to make themselves feel more important. For example, a mid-level clerk might withhold approvals on something unnecessarily and then act like they are doing you a favor when they finally do their job. These petty tyrants are everywhere.

[Flightmare]

Latest update
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/ne ... in-for-ind

[bblhd672]

Latest update
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/ne ... in-for-ind

Wonder what Waller Kounty will try next to get out of obeying the law?

[ELB]

Well drat.

I’m happy about the decision, but I have been haunting the SCOTEX and AG websites every single day, including yesterday, watching for this decision, and...I missed it. Grumble.

[roadkill]

Am I not mistaken that now that this case is resolved the AG can move forward I’m their case against Waller? Or is it the Austin case that is holding up the other cases against counties? I wonder how much money this case is going to cost the citizens of Waller county or if it even affects the elected officials who initiated the lawsuit against Holcomb.

[ELB]

Am I not mistaken that now that this case is resolved the AG can move forward I’m their case against Waller? Or is it the Austin case that is holding up the other cases against counties? I wonder how much money this case is going to cost the citizens of Waller county or if it even affects the elected officials who initiated the lawsuit against Holcomb.

Now that this is resolved the Austin case is the furthest along. I don't know which court the AG filed in against Waller County, but I expect they will wait for the outcome of the Austin case.

[deplorable]

If somebody took Waller County officials behind the woodshed, I wonder if the government would wait until the Austin case is resolved before investigating or arresting anybody.

[WildRose]

The Houston 1st Court of Appeals also ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the attorney fees and other costs of litigation the county must pay to Terry. The opinion makes it clear the court better award the money, or the appellate court will.

It was a great result. I'm going to do a podcast on this case pointing out the absurdity of the suit that was filed by the county and the judicial abuse by the judge who ruled in the county's favor.

Chas.

Fantastic news. It's a long fight but we're winning the battles along the way.

[WildRose]

Waller County's appeal to the SCOTEX (is that an existing acronym or did I just invent it?) is at this link:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMe ... aa7504915d

They are asking the SCOTEX to take the case to decide three things:

ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Under Verburgt v. Dorner, In the Interest of K.A.F., and the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure, does a Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over an appeal
if a motion to extend time to file notice of appeal is filed after the grace period
established in the Rules of Appellate Procedure?

2. Do signs posted at a courthouse that warn visitors that they may not enter the
premises with a firearm violate Section 411.209(a) of the Texas Government
Code?

3. Can a court dismiss a suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and still award
court costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief under Chapter 27 of the Civil
Practice and Remedies Code?

In Issues1 and 3 they are fussing over the legal procedural issues of Holcomb's appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Texas.

Issue 2 gets to what the rest of us really want to know, and it appears Waller County is still taking the position that in a building that houses a court room the entire building is off limits to LTC carry ( some foot notes removed):

II. Signs posted at a courthouse that warn visitors that they may not enter
the premises with a firearm do not violate Section 411.209(a) of the
Government Code, a statute with statewide importance considering
the volume of courthouses in Texas.

Government Code §411.209 states that a governmental entity
may not provide notice by a communication described by Section
30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or
to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a
handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from
entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased
by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited
from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section
46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code. TEX. GOV’T CODE §411.209(a).

The plain language of Section 411.209(a) only prohibits “communication
described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to [Penal
Code §30.06] or to a concealed handgun license.” Id. (emphasis added). That
language is very clear, unambiguous, and specific. Signs, including those posted by
Waller County, referring to Penal Code §46.03 are clearly not prohibited by the plain
language of Section 411.209(a). Additionally, a courthouse is a premises where
weapons are prohibited under Penal Code §46.03.

Penal Code §46.03 states:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal
knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by
the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written
authorization of the court;

Tex. Penal Code §46.03(a)(3).

In Section 46.034 “premises” is defined as “a building
or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.” Id.
at §46.035(f)(3).

The plain language of Section 46.03(a)(3), combined with the definition of
“premises,” clearly and unambiguously prohibits an individual from carrying a
firearm into a building that houses a government court.

In addition to the plain language of Government Code §411.209 and Penal
Code §46.03, the legislative history of Penal Code §46.03 establishes that the
prohibition against firearms in courthouses extends to the entire building.
In 1993 the 73rd Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1067, which re-codified
the Texas Penal Code. At that time, Section 46.03(a)(3) prohibited weapons “in any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court.” Tex. S.B. 1067, 73rd Leg., R.S.
(1993) (emphasis added). In 1995, the 74th Legislature passed Senate Bill 60, which
has become known as the “Texas Concealed Handgun Law.” That bill added section
46.035 to the Texas Penal Code and included the current definition of “premises” in
Penal Code §46.035(f)(3).

In 2003, the 78th Legislature passed Senate Bill 501 (“SB 501”), which
changed language found in Penal Code §46.03(a)(3) from “in any government court
. .”5 to “on the premises of any government court . . .” CR 67 at 002, line 13 (emphasis
added). This change in Section 46.03(a)(3) indicates a clear legislative intent to
prohibit firearms and other weapons from the entire building that houses a
government court or court office, not merely only from individual courtrooms and
offices. It would be meaningless for the legislature to amend Section 46.03(a)(3) if
their intention was for that section to have the exact same meaning before and after
amending it.

The plain language of Government Code Section 411.209 and Penal Code
46.03, as well as the legislative history of Section 46.03 establish that firearms are
prohibited throughout an entire courthouse.

How can they get away with making such obviously, patently false statements to the court? The plain language of the amended statute and guidance from the Ag relative to it make it plain that this is utterly false. How does that not constitute a fraud before the court?

[WildRose]

So, I really don't understand why Waller County (or any other that posts similar stuff) wants to keep out LTCers. Do they really think that LTCers, who we all know have the lowest criminal incidence rate of any group in this state, are going to go to a courthouse armed with the sole intent of foul play? Of course, is it likely that the real criminals who actually commit violent crimes will stay out just because of those signs? Or, is it just a case of petty tyranny, where they want to remind the populace that the big cheeses are in charge and no one may "challenge" that status? Or is it something else I haven't been able to fathom? I really would like to know their rational behind it.

Power over the people they serve and fear.

Gun control at every level is about subjugating "The People".

[bigtek]

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Evil is, as Evil does."

[ELB]

Has the trial court met or set a hearing to determine damages yet? I can find nothing online about this.

[ninjabread]

It's incredible a government agency can sue a whistle blower but citizens can't sue government agencies and agents that post improper 30.06 signs and illegally try to enforce them.

I'm not sure if I should raise or lower the odds I posted in https://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic ... 81&t=93824