TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:According to Fox News the Austin American-Statesman has reported that Travis County commissioners have decided not to renew the lease for the Saxet Gun Show

That's great news. It creates an opportunity for a neighboring community to make some money leasing their fairgrounds or community center to a pro-CHL show promoter who doesn't post those ridiculous 30.06 signs.

gringo pistolero wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:According to Fox News the Austin American-Statesman has reported that Travis County commissioners have decided not to renew the lease for the Saxet Gun Show

That's great news. It creates an opportunity for a neighboring community to make some money leasing their fairgrounds or community center to a pro-CHL show promoter who doesn't post those ridiculous 30.06 signs.

Agreed.

The 30.06 issue is an issue, but completely separate from this. Please do not conflate the two.

Similarly, taking the position that Saxet can or should move to Williamson county misses the point. This isn't a gun control issue, it's a civil rights issue. The government cannot pick and choose who it allows to use public facilities based on a political disagreement. That is the essence of the first amendment.

Can you imagine the uproar if the Travis County Commissioners refused to allow, for example, a promoter to rent the Expo Center or a county park for a Gay Pride Festival? Or if they told the promoter they would agree to the Festival but only if he would prohibit men from kissing each other on county property? Because THAT'S the essence of what Travis County has done. They imposed a requirement on Saxet that the county by state law has no power to enforce, in order to exclude a politically disfavored group from utilizing a public facility. This is rank discrimination, and it is arguably more dangerous as a threat to civil rights than a threat to gun rights. No local government would ever dare do this to a liberal sacred cow, because the ACLU would have them in court by the end of the day.

I hope someone is preparing that lawsuit on behalf of Saxet, as it appear Abbott has suddenly gone silent on the issue. What a difference an election year makes, huh?

Scott Farkus wrote:The 30.06 issue is an issue, but completely separate from this. Please do not conflate the two.

Similarly, taking the position that Saxet can or should move to Williamson county misses the point. This isn't a gun control issue, it's a civil rights issue. The government cannot pick and choose who it allows to use public facilities based on a political disagreement. That is the essence of the first amendment.

Can you imagine the uproar if the Travis County Commissioners refused to allow, for example, a promoter to rent the Expo Center or a county park for a Gay Pride Festival? Or if they told the promoter they would agree to the Festival but only if he would prohibit men from kissing each other on county property? Because THAT'S the essence of what Travis County has done. They imposed a requirement on Saxet that the county by state law has no power to enforce, in order to exclude a politically disfavored group from utilizing a public facility. This is rank discrimination, and it is arguably more dangerous as a threat to civil rights than a threat to gun rights. No local government would ever dare do this to a liberal sacred cow, because the ACLU would have them in court by the end of the day.

I hope someone is preparing that lawsuit on behalf of Saxet, as it appear Abbott has suddenly gone silent on the issue. What a difference an election year makes, huh?

I disagree. the County shouldn't be in the business of leasing space in the first place.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I disagree. the County shouldn't be in the business of leasing space in the first place.

That may well be true, but they do lease the space to any number of groups. The Rodeo, the ROT rally, horse shows, jewelry/bead shows, etc. Once they open it up to one, they have to open it up for all.

Scott Farkus wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I disagree. the County shouldn't be in the business of leasing space in the first place.

That may well be true, but they do lease the space to any number of groups. The Rodeo, the ROT rally, horse shows, jewelry/bead shows, etc. Once they open it up to one, they have to open it up for all.

But they can close it to one specific group?

Hit the reboot switch.

Anygunanywhere

Scott Farkus wrote:The 30.06 issue is an issue, but completely separate from this. Please do not conflate the two.

Similarly, taking the position that Saxet can or should move to Williamson county misses the point. This isn't a gun control issue, it's a civil rights issue. The government cannot pick and choose who it allows to use public facilities based on a political disagreement. That is the essence of the first amendment.

Can you imagine the uproar if the Travis County Commissioners refused to allow, for example, a promoter to rent the Expo Center or a county park for a Gay Pride Festival? Or if they told the promoter they would agree to the Festival but only if he would prohibit men from kissing each other on county property? Because THAT'S the essence of what Travis County has done. They imposed a requirement on Saxet that the county by state law has no power to enforce, in order to exclude a politically disfavored group from utilizing a public facility. This is rank discrimination, and it is arguably more dangerous as a threat to civil rights than a threat to gun rights. No local government would ever dare do this to a liberal sacred cow, because the ACLU would have them in court by the end of the day.

I hope someone is preparing that lawsuit on behalf of Saxet, as it appear Abbott has suddenly gone silent on the issue. What a difference an election year makes, huh?

great analogy

I completely disagree with what Travis county has done, considering they are establishing a standard that applies nowhere else in Texas. KEEP THIS IN MIND AS YOU READ MY RANT BELOW.

That being said, I've been to the Saxet gun show several times, and I cannot even begin to convey my quiet rage at "professional" private sellers.

You've probably seen these guys, often sitting at tables with a few scattered variety of firearms from various eras, offering the whole buy/sell/trade gamut. They're clearly not FFLs, but they clearly make the gun show circuits (they don't just do Austin, I've seen them in San Antonio and Temple/Belton too). These are the people that are breaking the law, and these are the people that the Travis County idiots are referring to. You might think, "Well, let the ATF handle this," and you'd be right, except the reality is that the ATF is VERY understaffed with agents (true story) and this is rarely the kind of thing that agents go after unless pressured at the state or federal level. They're far more interested in chasing down the bad guys that are "big movers." (or moving guns into Mexico, but that's being discussed on other threads )

So, once again, the few highly-visible scofflaws are the ones that are creating this issue.

Technically, there is a solution, but it wouldn't satisfy Travis Co, nor, I think, would Saxet agree to it (basically don't allow non-FFLs that rent tables to sell firearms).

ok, I'm done ranting. Flame away if you want to, just remember I in no way support what Travis Co is attempting to do.

OldCannon wrote:I completely disagree with what Travis county has done, considering they are establishing a standard that applies nowhere else in Texas. KEEP THIS IN MIND AS YOU READ MY RANT BELOW.

That being said, I've been to the Saxet gun show several times, and I cannot even begin to convey my quiet rage at "professional" private sellers.

You've probably seen these guys, often sitting at tables with a few scattered variety of firearms from various eras, offering the whole buy/sell/trade gamut. They're clearly not FFLs, but they clearly make the gun show circuits (they don't just do Austin, I've seen them in San Antonio and Temple/Belton too). These are the people that are breaking the law, and these are the people that the Travis County idiots are referring to. You might think, "Well, let the ATF handle this," and you'd be right, except the reality is that the ATF is VERY understaffed with agents (true story) and this is rarely the kind of thing that agents go after unless pressured at the state or federal level. They're far more interested in chasing down the bad guys that are "big movers." (or moving guns into Mexico, but that's being discussed on other threads )

So, once again, the few highly-visible scofflaws are the ones that are creating this issue.

Technically, there is a solution, but it wouldn't satisfy Travis Co, nor, I think, would Saxet agree to it (basically don't allow non-FFLs that rent tables to sell firearms).

ok, I'm done ranting. Flame away if you want to, just remember I in no way support what Travis Co is attempting to do.

Agreed on all counts.

A-R wrote:

great analogy

It would be if it said the for-profit parade company banned hand holding for years. And hired cops to enforce his house rules.

Now the county wants him to ban kissing unless the kissers have a clean bill of health. He refuses for economic practicality reasons. The county doesn't renew their business arrangement.

He doth protest too much and the gay community remembers his ban on hand holding and sees through his pro-gay act.

30.06 is a separate issue.

Scott Farkus wrote:30.06 is a separate issue.

THIS

Scott Farkus wrote: I hope someone is preparing that lawsuit on behalf of Saxet, as it appear Abbott has suddenly gone silent on the issue. What a difference an election year makes, huh?

Abbott wasn't silent on the issue initially. He obviously thought that Travis county was looking for litigation.
Honestly, I'd consider Abbott going silent as a good indicator. The lawyers usually get quiet when litigation is pending or in process.

I agree with most of your analogies, other than comparing it to banning a gay pride parade, as that's a "protected class" thing.
They've obviously imposing rules that have no basis in law and trying to enforce them on community owned property. This, in combination with the fact that they've already smacked around private property owners that were willing to allow gun trade events makes it a constitutional issue in my mind. Yea, they're gonna waste my tax dollars.

On what basis could they sue? This is not an attack, this is a question on what grounds would be the suit.

Is there a provision in the existing lease which is being breached if it is not extended? I doubt the county would have agreed to such.
What else?

Due process. Equal protection. Freedom of speech. Take your pick.