TexasCHLforum.com

Waco1959 wrote:Sounds like they didn't bother to read what the Texas State Library sent out last year . . . .

The rightness of their world view seems so compelling to them that they believe they must be allowed to ignore the law if the law is so ill advised as to violate their view. Those of us who disagree are rednecked rubes who need not be taken seriously.

eyet wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:In reading 46.03, I'm assuming they're trying to use "educational institution" as their argument?

You nailed it. I emailed County Judge Hebert and received a reply from the county attorney's office today. It was voted on in the February 9 Commissioners Court meeting. You can see the order, which contains their rationale at the link below. As a non-attorney, the logic seems pretty tortured.

http://agendalink.co.fort-bend.tx.us:80 ... 0order.pdf

I'll submit a complaint on the attorney general's web site in 3 days.

Great find. I haven't had a chance to send in my letter to Herbert yet as I've been traveling and working my rear end off since I took this picture.

The Commissioner is someone that I also know VERY well. I'm very disappointed in my county and these leaders. It's a ridiculous argument. We need to make sure these signs come down!

Perhaps we should tell them that our handguns are educational tools used to educate criminals that crime does not pay.

The problem is that just about anything could be considered an "educational institution". Life is a learning experience.

Given abuses like we are seeing here, educational institutions need to be removed from the list of people owned properties that can legally ban carry. No exceptions.

eyet wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:In reading 46.03, I'm assuming they're trying to use "educational institution" as their argument?

You nailed it. I emailed County Judge Hebert and received a reply from the county attorney's office today. It was voted on in the February 9 Commissioners Court meeting. You can see the order, which contains their rationale at the link below. As a non-attorney, the logic seems pretty tortured.

http://agendalink.co.fort-bend.tx.us:80 ... 0order.pdf

I'll submit a complaint on the attorney general's web site in 3 days.

If this is an educational facility, do they get the money for their budget from the school district?

338winmag wrote:

eyet wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:In reading 46.03, I'm assuming they're trying to use "educational institution" as their argument?

You nailed it. I emailed County Judge Hebert and received a reply from the county attorney's office today. It was voted on in the February 9 Commissioners Court meeting. You can see the order, which contains their rationale at the link below. As a non-attorney, the logic seems pretty tortured.

http://agendalink.co.fort-bend.tx.us:80 ... 0order.pdf

I'll submit a complaint on the attorney general's web site in 3 days.

If this is an educational facility, do they get the money for their budget from the school district?

I wouldn't be surprised if the school didn't donate or in some way contribute to the library, but that still doesn't count.

A county entity falling under 46.03? <insert facepalm here>
Are they delusional, or just arrogant?

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:A county entity falling under 46.03? <insert facepalm here>
Are they delusional, or just arrogant?

I'm going to go with delusional.

This is why we need to shift the process such that a people owned location must get clearance before they put signs up.

As it stands, they get to put up illegal signs, and leave them up while they make completely disingenuous arguments. And there are no repercussions whatsoever as long as they pull the signs down right before the fines start being assessed.

The law as it is now presumes that all parties will act with good faith to abide by the law. We have a number of government entities that have proven they cannot be entrusted to do this, so we need to take all discretion away from them.

C-dub wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:A county entity falling under 46.03? <insert facepalm here>
Are they delusional, or just arrogant?

I'm going to go with delusional.

I'll go with arrogant and here's why:

Even though the law allows it, the Legislature has gone out of their way to NOT prohibit license holders in the capitol building, including when they are in session. They have even gone so far as to set up a separate entry lane for license holders. In doing these things, the Legislature has made a very public statement that they fully trust the law abiding citizens who willingly put themselves through the vetting process to obtain the license.

In light of that, any political subdivision that posts (whether allowed by law or not) is making a public statement that they put themselves on a higher pedestal than the Legislature.

The Legislature set the standard. It is testimony to the character of the people running a political subdivision whether they post or not.

Just my $.02.

Pawpaw wrote:

C-dub wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:A county entity falling under 46.03? <insert facepalm here>
Are they delusional, or just arrogant?

I'm going to go with delusional.

I'll go with arrogant and here's why:

Even though the law allows it, the Legislature has gone out of their way to NOT prohibit license holders in the capitol building, including when they are in session. They have even gone so far as to set up a separate entry lane for license holders. In doing these things, the Legislature has made a very public statement that they fully trust the law abiding citizens who willingly put themselves through the vetting process to obtain the license.

In light of that, any political subdivision that posts (whether allowed by law or not) is making a public statement that they put themselves on a higher pedestal than the Legislature.

The Legislature set the standard. It is testimony to the character of the people running a political subdivision whether they post or not.

Just my $.02.

Does the law allow for the Legislature to ban carry when they are NOT in session? I thought it didn't...Then again it's the Legislature, so they could just change the law if they wanted to...

ScottDLS wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

C-dub wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:A county entity falling under 46.03? <insert facepalm here>
Are they delusional, or just arrogant?

I'm going to go with delusional.

I'll go with arrogant and here's why:

Even though the law allows it, the Legislature has gone out of their way to NOT prohibit license holders in the capitol building, including when they are in session. They have even gone so far as to set up a separate entry lane for license holders. In doing these things, the Legislature has made a very public statement that they fully trust the law abiding citizens who willingly put themselves through the vetting process to obtain the license.

In light of that, any political subdivision that posts (whether allowed by law or not) is making a public statement that they put themselves on a higher pedestal than the Legislature.

The Legislature set the standard. It is testimony to the character of the people running a political subdivision whether they post or not.

Just my $.02.

Does the law allow for the Legislature to ban carry when they are NOT in session? I thought it didn't...Then again it's the Legislature, so they could just change the law if they wanted to...

No, but the law does say:

PC §46.035 wrote:(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, in the room or rooms where a meeting of a governmental entity is held and if the meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code, and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter.

Of course, sub-paragraph (i) says it must be posted. Even still, the Legislature does not allow that when they are in session. I think that certainly qualifies as, "a meeting of a governmental entity."

OK right, they allow it WHILE they're meeting, which they don't have to...

ScottDLS wrote:OK right, they allow it WHILE they're meeting, which they don't have to...

But they have posted the chambers in the past. It was specifically brought up during the testimony on Open Carry (if I recall correctly) that Sen. Whitmire at one point had received death threats and they posted the Senate gallery for a time so that visitors could not carry while the Senate was in session as a measure to ensure his safety.

Pawpaw wrote:

C-dub wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:A county entity falling under 46.03? <insert facepalm here>
Are they delusional, or just arrogant?

I'm going to go with delusional.

I'll go with arrogant and here's why:

Even though the law allows it, the Legislature has gone out of their way to NOT prohibit license holders in the capitol building, including when they are in session. They have even gone so far as to set up a separate entry lane for license holders. In doing these things, the Legislature has made a very public statement that they fully trust the law abiding citizens who willingly put themselves through the vetting process to obtain the license.

In light of that, any political subdivision that posts (whether allowed by law or not) is making a public statement that they put themselves on a higher pedestal than the Legislature.

The Legislature set the standard. It is testimony to the character of the people running a political subdivision whether they post or not.

Just my $.02.

Very thought-provoking. Excellent post.