30.06 Ruling Letters

[ELB]

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.

[Oak Threeper]

I hope we see some real progress before election day.

[ScottDLS]

Maybe if they rule for carry I’ll open carry a blue rubber fake handgun in during teen court. We’ll then see if the DPS comes all the way to Flower Mound and throws a flash bang in my window at 2 am.

[WildRose]

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?

[C-dub]

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?

I think that's where the rub is. The AG opinion/guidance is not law and they disagree with his opinion/guidance and seem willing to go to court to settle the law.

[WildRose]

Maybe if they rule for carry I’ll open carry a blue rubber fake handgun in during teen court. We’ll then see if the DPS comes all the way to Flower Mound and throws a flash bang in my window at 2 am.

Such provocation do nothing but make all of us look bad.

[WildRose]

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?

I think that's where the rub is. The AG opinion/guidance is not law and they disagree with his opinion/guidance and seem willing to go to court to settle the law.

Yet the plain letter of the law is.

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.

[ELB]

...
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.
...

I guess that's why we have judges to make a decision, because as I read the law, I thought the AG was being, let's say "very aggressive" in stating that only the courtrooms and court offices were off limits to carry.

The judge notes in her previous ruling that 46.03 that weapons are prohibited "on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court,". She points that if you substitute the legal definition of "premises" into that sentence, you get

- weapons are prohibited "[in] the building or a portion of a building of any government court or offices utilized by the court."

That can be logically read as

- weapons are prohibited in the building of any government court,
or
- weapons are prohibited in any portion of a building of any government court.


To the extent that the "or" in the definition of premises provides a choice, the choice is up to the court/government.

The fines-for-signs law places explicitly restricts the power of the government to forbid licensed carry, except for the statutory exceptions in 46.03 and 46.035. But once those exceptions come in to play, the restriction is now on the carry of weapons, and fines-for-signs does not apply.

However (and I'm not sure how she really came up with this, maybe it was in the AG's arguments) that 46.035 restriction on parts of the building not used by the court applies ONLY when court is in session. That's a significant limit on the power of the courts and government to ban weapons in an entire building.

[BBYC]

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?

The bad guys don't care what the law or the Constitution actually says unless it's convenient for them. The Ninth Circuit is proof of that.

[WildRose]

...
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.
...

I guess that's why we have judges to make a decision, because as I read the law, I thought the AG was being, let's say "very aggressive" in stating that only the courtrooms and court offices were off limits to carry.

The judge notes in her previous ruling that 46.03 that weapons are prohibited "on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court,". She points that if you substitute the legal definition of "premises" into that sentence, you get

- weapons are prohibited "[in] the building or a portion of a building of any government court or offices utilized by the court."

That can be logically read as

- weapons are prohibited in the building of any government court,
or
- weapons are prohibited in any portion of a building of any government court.


To the extent that the "or" in the definition of premises provides a choice, the choice is up to the court/government.

The fines-for-signs law places explicitly restricts the power of the government to forbid licensed carry, except for the statutory exceptions in 46.03 and 46.035. But once those exceptions come in to play, the restriction is now on the carry of weapons, and fines-for-signs does not apply.

However (and I'm not sure how she really came up with this, maybe it was in the AG's arguments) that 46.035 restriction on parts of the building not used by the court applies ONLY when court is in session. That's a significant limit on the power of the courts and government to ban weapons in an entire building.

I think to get there she is purposely ignoring the intent of the legislature. Had the legislature wanted the entire building to be off limits, that is what they would have stated. The whole point of the revision was to allow lawful carry in the buildings while still keeping the courtrooms and court offices posted.

The legislative history and discussions make that pretty clear at least to me. Perhaps this is a good example of textualism over all else including legislative intent but to me it just looks like she's finding any excuse she can to allow for an obvious abuse of our rights.

It also ignores the well understood intent of the 2nd Amendment and the plain reading of same. To bear arms is a right, not a privilege and the only protected right that comes with the specific caveat "shall not be infringed". Of course after 200 years of most courts completely ignoring the latter they have effectively rewritten it into being privilege that may be restricted to almost any degree as long as one can legally buy and possess a firearm of any kind at home.

[WildRose]

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?

The bad guys don't care what the law or the Constitution actually says unless it's convenient for them. The Ninth Circuit is proof of that.

More and more the "bad guys" are political activists in black robes who aspire to the bench because they believe it is the role of the judiciary to dictate policy rather than adhere strictly to the law and constitutions as written.

Hopefully we can keep turning the tide back one case at a time, one seat at a time.

[ScottDLS]

Maybe if they rule for carry I’ll open carry a blue rubber fake handgun in during teen court. We’ll then see if the DPS comes all the way to Flower Mound and throws a flash bang in my window at 2 am.

Such provocation do nothing but make all of us look bad.

As would the DPS and SWAT team throwing a flashbang grenade in my window while serving a warrant for something that is not a crime.

[ScottDLS]

Maybe if they rule for carry I’ll open carry a blue rubber fake handgun in during teen court. We’ll then see if the DPS comes all the way to Flower Mound and throws a flash bang in my window at 2 am.

Such provocation do nothing but make all of us look bad.

As would the DPS and SWAT team throwing a flashbang grenade in my window while serving a warrant for something that is not a crime.
Take the flashbang part out and the above has already happened to someone in Bexar County.

[ELB]

"Legislative intent" does not trump "what the Legislature actually wrote", and I believe that is a rather solid judicial principle well known to both the judiciary and the Legislature. "Legislative intent" is also often in the eye of the beholder, which is why it makes a lesser method of interpreting the law.

Wildrose, if you or anyone can point to a source that documents the legislative intent of the 46.03 weapons-prohibited-in-court section, as well as the "building or portion of a building I would love to read it. This exact point has been argued many times on this forum, and I think this is an easy one to confuse "my intent" with the legislature's intent. I wish it were otherwise, but the judge laid down a pretty good analysis of how 46.03 and 46.035 play together.

As well, her ruling on the temporal nature of this restriction speaks (loudly) against her simply trying to restrict the rights of license holders. Her opinion doesn't really cite where that came from, I assume it is something that the OAG's briefs brought forward, but had she been dead-set against carry in the courthouse she could have easily dispensed with the temporal issue.

[WildRose]

"Legislative intent" does not trump "what the Legislature actually wrote", and I believe that is a rather solid judicial principle well known to both the judiciary and the Legislature. "Legislative intent" is also often in the eye of the beholder, which is why it makes a lesser method of interpreting the law.

Wildrose, if you or anyone can point to a source that documents the legislative intent of the 46.03 weapons-prohibited-in-court section, as well as the "building or portion of a building I would love to read it. This exact point has been argued many times on this forum, and I think this is an easy one to confuse "my intent" with the legislature's intent. I wish it were otherwise, but the judge laid down a pretty good analysis of how 46.03 and 46.035 play together.

As well, her ruling on the temporal nature of this restriction speaks (loudly) against her simply trying to restrict the rights of license holders. Her opinion doesn't really cite where that came from, I assume it is something that the OAG's briefs brought forward, but had she been dead-set against carry in the courthouse she could have easily dispensed with the temporal issue.

Respecting the legislative intent is as old as our courts system. I can't give you a link but all of the debate discussions are available through the capitol archives. I'm going off of memory of course but I'm also going off of common sense.

There was no reason to change the law if keeping the entire courthouse building posted was the intent.

There intent with amending the law was to remove that complete prohibition and limit it to the actual court rooms and court offices.

One can argue it's poorly written since a judge can make the argument above but then there's no way to craft any legislation today that activist judges will not find someway around in their rulings.