Page 2 of 3
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:35 pm
by Solaris
The Annoyed Man wrote:joe817 wrote:
Fear not my friends, for we now have means to correct those infractions!
$10,000 per day, per location, right? How long can the county sustain that?
Forever since they will never be fined. The fine is for invalid 30.06 signs, not for deciding what is a court or office utilized by the court. AG has already stated cities soley decide what constitutes a court.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:06 pm
by G.A. Heath
Solaris wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:joe817 wrote:
Fear not my friends, for we now have means to correct those infractions!
$10,000 per day, per location, right? How long can the county sustain that?
Forever since they will never be fined. The fine is for invalid 30.06 signs, not for deciding what is a court or office utilized by the court. AG has already stated cities soley decide what constitutes a court.
There are limits to what can be considered essential to the court. Can the court decide that all taxed property as essential to the court as that revenue is needed to pay their salaries? Can they then determine that all untaxed property is essential to the operations of the court in some manner even in emergency situations? If so they can then potentially ban firearms in their entire jurisdiction! The answer to all of that is:
no they can not.
The AG opinion says they can decide what is essential to their operation, but there had better be some valid logic behind the claim.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:32 pm
by Solaris
G.A. Heath wrote:Solaris wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:joe817 wrote:
Fear not my friends, for we now have means to correct those infractions!
$10,000 per day, per location, right? How long can the county sustain that?
Forever since they will never be fined. The fine is for invalid 30.06 signs, not for deciding what is a court or office utilized by the court. AG has already stated cities soley decide what constitutes a court.
There are limits to what can be considered essential to the court. Can the court decide that all taxed property as essential to the court as that revenue is needed to pay their salaries? Can they then determine that all untaxed property is essential to the operations of the court in some manner even in emergency situations? If so they can then potentially ban firearms in their entire jurisdiction! The answer to all of that is:
no they can not.
The AG opinion says they can decide what is essential to their operation, but there had better be some valid logic behind the claim.
So we are in agreement, there is no "
$10,000 per day, per location" as applied to rooms incorrectly ID'd as courts.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:58 pm
by darkmavis9
I say won't be banned for long.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:22 pm
by The Annoyed Man
WildBill wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:joe817 wrote:
Fear not my friends, for we now have means to correct those infractions!
$10,000 per day, per location, right? How long can the county sustain that?
It's your money not theirs.
Well, not to sound unsympathetic, but it is Potter County taxpayer's money, not mine. I'm in Tarrant county. Even so, I wouldn't be that upset about it, when the judge has to explain that to voters when she runs for reelection.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:25 pm
by WildBill
The Annoyed Man wrote:WildBill wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:joe817 wrote:
Fear not my friends, for we now have means to correct those infractions!
$10,000 per day, per location, right? How long can the county sustain that?
It's your money not theirs.
Well, not to sound unsympathetic, but it is Potter County taxpayer's money, not mine. I'm in Tarrant county. Even so, I wouldn't be that upset about it, when the judge has to explain that to voters when she runs for reelection.
I meant "your money" as in taxpayer.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:12 pm
by tomtexan
WildBill wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:WildBill wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:joe817 wrote:
Fear not my friends, for we now have means to correct those infractions!
$10,000 per day, per location, right? How long can the county sustain that?
It's your money not theirs.
Well, not to sound unsympathetic,
but it is Potter County taxpayer's money, not mine. I'm in Tarrant county. Even so, I wouldn't be that upset about it, when the judge has to explain that to voters when she runs for reelection.
I meant "your money" as in taxpayer.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:38 pm
by G.A. Heath
Solaris wrote:G.A. Heath wrote:Solaris wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:joe817 wrote:
Fear not my friends, for we now have means to correct those infractions!
$10,000 per day, per location, right? How long can the county sustain that?
Forever since they will never be fined. The fine is for invalid 30.06 signs, not for deciding what is a court or office utilized by the court. AG has already stated cities soley decide what constitutes a court.
There are limits to what can be considered essential to the court. Can the court decide that all taxed property as essential to the court as that revenue is needed to pay their salaries? Can they then determine that all untaxed property is essential to the operations of the court in some manner even in emergency situations? If so they can then potentially ban firearms in their entire jurisdiction! The answer to all of that is:
no they can not.
The AG opinion says they can decide what is essential to their operation, but there had better be some valid logic behind the claim.
So we are in agreement, there is no "
$10,000 per day, per location" as applied to rooms incorrectly ID'd as courts.
Not really, I am saying there are limits to what they can claim and the logic to those claims had better be valid. I am almost certain that the AG has a plan to establish case law with "low hanging fruit" and move up to more interesting cases like counties that claim an entire building is off limits because there is a court in it and they find some use for that room.
The law itself states "government court or offices utilized by the court" this means that the hallway is not an office utilized by the court nor is the restrooms, nor is the janitor's closet simply because they are not offices just like the hallways are not offices. Consider the tax assessor's office where you go to renew you automobile plates. They have to collect fees relating to court orders so are they an office utilized by the court? What about the DPS office where new/renewed DLs are handled, does it count because they are subject to court orders as well? I would say no because the legislature has already made it clear we can carry in Sheriff's offices and Police Stations which themselves are subject to court orders. There are limits and the fact that someone ignores them doesn't mean they will get away with it. A more creative scheme might take longer to deal with, but it could result in helping convince the legislature to eliminate off limits locations for license holders. While annoying this fight might just be a boon for us.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:18 am
by rmr24
MeMelYup wrote:Does anyone have a copy of this act that they can post?
I can not find it on-line. The agenda for the meeting stated the resolution was to prohibit guns in the courthouse, court building and the Santa Fe building. Either the county judge mis-spoke or was mis-quoted when she said "..any building owned by Potter County."
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:21 am
by Glockster
Careful, I think that we need to pace ourselves as they have a full year yet during which they apparently can (safely) ignore the law, followed by other possible changes or additions to the law introduced next session...which will then be summarily ignored or subject to yet more interpretation. I'm sorry, but I think that we will be lucky to see any actual fines levied between now and then (and I'm not real confident on them even happening "then").
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:25 am
by joelamosobadiah
Potter County has a long standing history of a tyrannical, good 'ol boy network running the County. This attitude runs across virtually every elected and appointed official in the County and is largely backed up by city officials causing change to be extremely difficult.
Most of this debate and decisions happened in January with quite a bit of local media coverage, yet in the most recent election primary's no meaningful change (in my knowledge) took place.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:41 am
by Solaris
G.A. Heath wrote:
Not really, I am saying there are limits to what they can claim and the logic to those claims had better be valid.
Well then we are not talking about the same thing, as I am only reffering to the "
$10,000 per day, per location" as I quoted.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:58 am
by joe817
rmr24 wrote:MeMelYup wrote:Does anyone have a copy of this act that they can post?
I can not find it on-line. The agenda for the meeting stated the resolution was to prohibit guns in the courthouse, court building and the Santa Fe building. Either the county judge mis-spoke or was mis-quoted when she said "..any building owned by Potter County."
Here's the agenda rmr24 is referring to, item # 13:
http://tools.cira.state.tx.us/users/048 ... URRENT.pdf
The minutes of the meeting hasn't been posted yet, but here's a video of the meeting. I haven't viewed it yet...just found it:
http://www.co.potter.tx.us/default.aspx ... ourtVideos
Edit to add: The beginning of the discussion starts at time stamp 1:05:10.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:37 pm
by The Annoyed Man
Solaris wrote:G.A. Heath wrote:
Not really, I am saying there are limits to what they can claim and the logic to those claims had better be valid.
Well then we are not talking about the same thing, as I am only reffering to the "
$10,000 per day, per location" as I quoted.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... GV.411.htm
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.
Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (S.B. 273), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.
"
A premise" is a single location. Thus, it is possible to file a complaint, and theoretically anyway - depending on the AG's individual scrotal heft - obtain a fine per day per location.
Re: Potter County bans guns in all county owned buildings
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:26 pm
by Solaris
The Annoyed Man wrote:Solaris wrote:G.A. Heath wrote:
Not really, I am saying there are limits to what they can claim and the logic to those claims had better be valid.
Well then we are not talking about the same thing, as I am only reffering to the "
$10,000 per day, per location" as I quoted.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... GV.411.htm
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.
Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (S.B. 273), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.
"
A premise" is a single location. Thus, it is possible to file a complaint, and theoretically anyway - depending on the AG's individual scrotal heft - obtain a fine per day per location.
What you are missing is that The "
$10,000 per day, per location" only applies to "
notice by a communication described by Section 30.06". As highlighted in
BLUE, it specifically states it does not apply to 46.03 or 46.035 premises.
There is nothing new here, as this has been going on for years. A local municipal complex has been off limits as a "
offices used by the court" since day 1. There is no penalty, and the AG sided with the city stating they have the sole right to determine what is and is not an office used by the courts. So far nobody wants to be the test case.