Got a letter today from AG Ken Paxton

[dhoobler]

On October 5 I filed a complaint against the city of Pasadena for wrongly excluding concealed handgun license holders from the Pasadena Convention Center during gun shows. Today I received a letter from Ken Paxton related to my complaint. It was a CC to a letter sent to the mayor of Pasadena. It read as follows:

Dear Mayor Isbell:
The Office of Attorney General ("OAG") received a citizen complaint concerning the wrongful exclusion of concealed handgun license holders under section 411.209 of the Government Code. Please be advised that the OAG will be reviewing this complaint. Upon completion of the review, the OAG will inform you of our decision. Please feel free to submit any information you think would be helpful with this review.

In other words, the OAG has just taken up my complaint almost five months after I submitted it. I think someone needs a primary opponent next go around.

[Twist]

I know that there's 2 different gun show sponsors there but I can tell you this, it's no longer posted for the Premier Gun Shows and hasn't been since at least January. I know this for a fact as I carried at one last Saturday and simply had to show my license to one of the officers that was sitting just inside the entrance.

Hopefully your letter made a difference before the response you received but you can absolutely carry during the shows Premier puts on at least.

[rtschl]

I too got CC'd a letter from AG Ken Paxton to the Mayor of Ft. Worth regarding mine and another person's complaint about the Fort Worth Zoo.

Mine was worded almost the same as the OP's letter.

It's moving along...

[Lynyrd]

Well, I am confused.

By the law the fines are supposed to start when? Not months later, surely? This law has no teeth if the AG chooses not to enforce it. The current occupant of the oval office has chose not to enforce many laws.

[winters]

Well, I am confused.

By the law the fines are supposed to start when? Not months later, surely? This law has no teeth if the AG chooses not to enforce it. The current occupant of the oval office has chose not to enforce many laws.

Well he doesn't care about that pesky thing call the constitution and thinks he can go around congress and make any laws he wants. So why would he enforce current gun laws?

[rtschl]

Whoa. Let's be fair to the AG and especially with regards to comparing him to POTUS.

This is a new law. I'm quite certain that attorneys and staff in the OAG are having to research and write procedures and protocols before they begin to investigate apparent violations. In our litigious society they have to have "every i dotted and t crossed" otherwise we'll take one step forward and three steps back. As I've said before, this issue is not the only legal matter that requires the attention of the AG, nor is it the most urgent one, though it is very important to all of us here. Lets be patient and let the process work.

I'm very encouraged that these notices have been sent to these cities and I assume other political subdivisions. They have been officially notified that they are under investigation for violating the law. They have now been given an opportunity to officially respond to our complaints as part of the investigation. This is working just as the process has been intended in the statue.

[Jusme]

Whoa. Let's be fair to the AG and especially with regards to comparing him to POTUS.

This is a new law. I'm quite certain that attorneys and staff in the OAG are having to research and write procedures and protocols before they begin to investigate apparent violations. In our litigious society they have to have "every i dotted and t crossed" otherwise we'll take one step forward and three steps back. As I've said before, this issue is not the only legal matter that requires the attention of the AG, nor is it the most urgent one, though it is very important to all of us here. Lets be patient and let the process work.

I'm very encouraged that these notices have been sent to these cities and I assume other political subdivisions. They have been officially notified that they are under investigation for violating the law. They have now been given an opportunity to officially respond to our complaints as part of the investigation. This is working just as the process has been intended in the statue.

Exactly, while this issue is near and dear to our hearts there are other things the AG has to deal with across this great state. Also I doubt that anything filed in October was put into action before Jan 1st after the law was fully vetted. I'm also certain that it will only take a few cases being investigated and fines imposed before every municipality decides it's not worth the cost to refuse to comply. There may be a few test cases, but overall I think that the majority of these issues will be a faded memory before long.

[oljames3]

I received a similar letter, a copy of the letter the AG's office sent to Elgin ISD.

[dhoobler]

Well, I am confused.

By the law the fines are supposed to start when? Not months later, surely? This law has no teeth if the AG chooses not to enforce it. The current occupant of the oval office has chose not to enforce many laws.

Fines start fifteen days after the AG notifies the political subdivision that they are in violation of the law. To date, no political subdivision has received such notice.

[txpilot]

Well, I am confused.

By the law the fines are supposed to start when? Not months later, surely? This law has no teeth if the AG chooses not to enforce it. The current occupant of the oval office has chose not to enforce many laws.

Fines start fifteen days after the AG notifies the political subdivision that they are in violation of the law. To date, no political subdivision has received such notice.

If I remember correctly, the time doesn't start until the AG has completed his investigation and officially notified the entity that they are in violation of the law. At that point, they have 15 days to remove the signs without penalty, and THEN the penalties start to accumulate.

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state 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.

(b) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state that violates Subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of:
(1) not less than $1,000 and not more than $1,500 for the first violation; and
(2) not less than $10,000 and not more than $10,500 for the second or a subsequent violation.

(c) Each day of a continuing violation of Subsection (a) constitutes a separate violation.

(d) A citizen of this state or a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under this subchapter may file a complaint with the attorney general that a state agency or political subdivision is in violation of Subsection (a) if the citizen or person provides the agency or subdivision a written notice that describes the violation and specific location of the sign found to be in violation and the agency or subdivision does not cure the violation before the end of the third business day after the date of receiving the written notice. A complaint filed under this subsection must include evidence of the violation and a copy of the written notice.

(e) A civil penalty collected by the attorney general under this section shall be deposited to the credit of the compensation to victims of crime fund established under Subchapter B, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(f) Before a suit may be brought against a state agency or a political subdivision of the state for a violation of Subsection (a), the attorney general must investigate the complaint to determine whether legal action is warranted. If legal action is warranted, the attorney general must give the chief administrative officer of the agency or political subdivision charged with the violation a written notice that:
(1) describes the violation and specific location of the sign found to be in violation;
(2) states the amount of the proposed penalty for the violation; and
(3) gives the agency or political subdivision 15 days from receipt of the notice to remove the sign and cure the violation to avoid the penalty, unless the agency or political subdivision was found liable by a court for previously violating Subsection (a).

(g) If the attorney general determines that legal action is warranted and that the state agency or political subdivision has not cured the violation within the 15-day period provided by Subsection (f)(3), the attorney general or the appropriate county or district attorney may sue to collect the civil penalty provided by Subsection (b). The attorney general may also file a petition for a writ of mandamus or apply for other appropriate equitable relief. A suit or petition under this subsection may be filed in a district court in Travis County or in a county in which the principal office of the state agency or political subdivision is located. The attorney general may recover reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining relief under this subsection, including court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, investigative costs, witness fees, and deposition costs.

(h) Sovereign immunity to suit is waived and abolished to the extent of liability created by this section.

[OneGun]

At least justice is moving and the time scale is months, not years or decades. I don't fault the AG for taking several months since this is a new law and there is little case precedent. I'm more interested in the outcomes. If the AG determines these locations are non-compliant, then how far will the AG go to enforce the law?

[locke_n_load]

Glad to hear movement.
Anyone get anything back from the Zoo complaints?

[Abraham]

Months?

Ah, ye of much faith.

Centuries, if ever, and not this one...

Foot dragging at it's most traditional.

[RoyGBiv]

Whoa. Let's be fair to the AG and especially with regards to comparing him to POTUS.

This is a new law. I'm quite certain that attorneys and staff in the OAG are having to research and write procedures and protocols before they begin to investigate apparent violations. In our litigious society they have to have "every i dotted and t crossed" otherwise we'll take one step forward and three steps back. As I've said before, this issue is not the only legal matter that requires the attention of the AG, nor is it the most urgent one, though it is very important to all of us here. Lets be patient and let the process work.

I'm very encouraged that these notices have been sent to these cities and I assume other political subdivisions. They have been officially notified that they are under investigation for violating the law. They have now been given an opportunity to officially respond to our complaints as part of the investigation. This is working just as the process has been intended in the statue.

Absolutely this.

Change is a process. The process is never as fast as the change we desire.
Patience is a virtue.

AG Paxton...

[dhoobler]

I received a second letter from the OAG. The relevant text is as follows:

The OAG understands this complaint was resolved once the sign was removed after the gun show concluded. Additionally, the OAG received an email from Deputy City Attorney Richard Risinger stating the City of Pasadena is no longer allowing gun show operators to post Texas Penal Code 30.06 signs or concealed handgun signs at the Pasadena Convention Center. Therefore, the OAG is closing this complaint.

The good news is that the City of Pasadena has agreed to obey the law, which they should have already been doing. The bad news is that this enforcement example is unlikely to influence the dug in resistance to SB 273.