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

[bblhd672]

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.

The first thing I thought was “ how much did this cost Holcomb to defend himself?” I’m glad to hear the county is going to be required to reimburse his attorney fees and other costs. About 125% of what it cost Holcomb in fees, costs and lost wages is a good starting point.

[mojo84]

A lot of taxpayer money was wasted also. Glad it turned out like it did.

[dlh]

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.

Good to hear,Charles! I thought that was a frivolous suit from the get-go.

[Charles L. Cotton]

A lot of taxpayer money was wasted also. Glad it turned out like it did.

After the case is fully over, including the AG suit, someone should serve an Open Records Request for all documents, audio/video records, emails, check requests/stubs, etc. related to this issue. Then give it to the media. Not me -- I do enough of these requests.

Chas.

[mojo84]

A lot of taxpayer money was wasted also. Glad it turned out like it did.

After the case is fully over, including the AG suit, someone should serve an Open Records Request for all documents, audio/video records, emails, check requests/stubs, etc. related to this issue. Then give it to the media. Not me -- I do enough of these requests.

Chas.

That's a good idea. I'll consider doing it if I remember or it hits my radar at the appropriate time. I may need a little coaching on how to phrase the letter appropriately to get all the info.

[treadlightly]

A lot of taxpayer money was wasted also. Glad it turned out like it did.

After the case is fully over, including the AG suit, someone should serve an Open Records Request for all documents, audio/video records, emails, check requests/stubs, etc. related to this issue. Then give it to the media. Not me -- I do enough of these requests.

Chas.

That's a good idea. I'll consider doing it if I remember or it hits my radar at the appropriate time. I may need a little coaching on how to phrase the letter appropriately to get all the info.

I’ve done three Public Information Act requests. I’m not a lawyer, just somebody who gets steamed when the State won’t follow its own laws.

Read the AG’s PIA handbook, for starters (free pdf download). No special wording is required, but I think it makes sense to say you are asking under the PIA. Basically, any question to a State employee is covered. If you ask a secretary how late her office is open, it’s technically covered under the PIA.

If you don’t get the information you want, this is one of the few things the AG will help with

Out of the three requests I’ve written, all three were deliberately mishandled. One, I didn’t learn how I was scammed for months. Another, the AG wrote a demand letter on my behalf (and the agency still said they didn’t have meeting minutes required in statutes), and a third I’m just getting started on.

I should probably get a life. The PIA carries criminal penalties without protection of office, but that doesn’t mean it’s willingly obeyed in all cases.

[RossA]

I am so happy to see that the judge (a former friend before all of this) was slapped down publicly. Too bad a judge who makes such bad rulings can't be forced to pay attorney's fees. Or a district or county attorney who pursues a frivolous case like this. The taxpayers always foot the bill.

[1wise1]

Every story says this decision is going to "cost the county".... NO it is going to cost the taxpayers. The county is not a profit making business it is a political entity that levies a tax on every business and citizen in Waller County, as well as receives grants from the state treasury.
The District Attorney is elected by the voters of Waller County, and so is the judge. First order of business should be removal of both by the voters and then a similar house cleaning of additional county offices. Perhaps a complaint should be brought with the state bar association as well asking for a misconduct ruling. Doctors lose their licenses for malpractice... so should other licensed professionals who engage in overreach.

[puma guy]

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.

Holcomb VS. Waller Co.
Holcomb by knockout - two stiff jabs and a devastating uppercut.

[ELB]

Any news on this?

[ELB]

Thanks for the update.

I waded out of the Facebook swap couple or three years ago so these days I wont see the occasional lilly floating among all of the muck. Thanks for bringing this one out where I could see it.

[cherokeepilot]

Every law that was ever written opened up a new way to graft.

[ELB]

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.

[ELB]

Holcomb('s attorney) filed a Response Waiver yesterday:

Because the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the First District accurately states the
material facts, correctly applies the law, and reaches the right result, Respondent Terry Holcomb,
Sr., will not file a response to the Petition For Review unless the Court requests such a response.

So now I guess it is up to SCOTX.