TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05 ... enges.html

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton already has filed suit against local jurisdictions that had been accused of not cooperating with federal immigration agents, in a preemptive bid to uphold a newly signed anti-sanctuary city law and head off numerous legal challenges.

Paxton filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, as Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday signed the crackdown which bars sanctuary policies and gives local law enforcement officers the right to ask the immigration status of anyone they stop. Under the law, local officers who won’t cooperate with federal immigration agents could face jail time and fines up to $25,000 per day.

I think Austin forgot the prime directive. Don't mess with Texas.

Kind of sad the fines for signs law didn't get the same kind of enthusiasm, though, and if I were a target of this suit I'd be tempted to use that law as an example of how the intent of the legislature can be cherry picked by the executive branch. If Paxton can pick and choose which law gets attention, why couldn't I?

I ask rhetorically, of course.

How do you sue based upon a law that doesn't take effect until Sept 1?

I have no reason to try to defend General Paxton nor do I want to. I had the opportunity a couple of months ago to pose a written question to him about the fines for signs enforcement. General Paxton was at the event in person. I was fortunate in the fact that the person actually reading my question to General Paxton was an LTC instructor and was able to embellish what I had asked (What is necessary to more vigorously enforce the fines for signs law)
General Paxton's response was that some of the language and definitions needed to be cleaned up. He did not elaborate on which ones or what the changes should be. He did express his surprise to be named as the enforcer of the law and talked about its sponsor. I'm not in a position to pass judgement about the validity of his response. I'm as disappointed as you that places the the Ft. Worth Zoo are allowed to continue with their charade. How you can claim to be an educational institution in order to post the 30.06 and have a liquor license at the same time boggles my mind.

I guess that I thought that anti-sanctuary city bill did not go into effect until September 1st. I happened to be watching Fox News this morning and saw his exchange with the hosts over the filling of the lawsuits. General Paxton did a decent job of articulating why he decided to file now - so that he could pick the battleground rather than allow it to evolve. To be honest, I'm not much more optimistic about Sheriff Hernandez getting arrested than I am about the Ft. Worth Zoo taking down their signs. Time will tell.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:How do you sue based upon a law that doesn't take effect until Sept 1?

This is strictly a pre-emptive move, so that once the law goes into effect, there will already be a ruling in the district court, declaring the law Constitutional. The fines, and jail time issue is secondary.

chasfm11 wrote:I have no reason to try to defend General Paxton nor do I want to. I had the opportunity a couple of months ago to pose a written question to him about the fines for signs enforcement. General Paxton was at the event in person. I was fortunate in the fact that the person actually reading my question to General Paxton was an LTC instructor and was able to embellish what I had asked (What is necessary to more vigorously enforce the fines for signs law)
General Paxton's response was that some of the language and definitions needed to be cleaned up. He did not elaborate on which ones or what the changes should be. He did express his surprise to be named as the enforcer of the law and talked about its sponsor. I'm not in a position to pass judgement about the validity of his response. I'm as disappointed as you that places the the Ft. Worth Zoo are allowed to continue with their charade. How you can claim to be an educational institution in order to post the 30.06 and have a liquor license at the same time boggles my mind.

I guess that I thought that anti-sanctuary city bill did not go into effect until September 1st. I happened to be watching Fox News this morning and saw his exchange with the hosts over the filling of the lawsuits. General Paxton did a decent job of articulating why he decided to file now - so that he could pick the battleground rather than allow it to evolve. To be honest, I'm not much more optimistic about Sheriff Hernandez getting arrested than I am about the Ft. Worth Zoo taking down their signs. Time will tell.

With respect to the Ft. Worth Zoo, was there ever a ruling from AG Paxton, or were they relying on KP-108 which refers not to Educational Institutions but non-profits leasing government property. If the Fort Worth Zoo contends they are a school, then they still may not prohibit carry on the property...only in the buildings. Same with 51% licensees.

ScottDLS wrote:With respect to the Ft. Worth Zoo, was there ever a ruling from AG Paxton, or were they relying on KP-108 which refers not to Educational Institutions but non-profits leasing government property. If the Fort Worth Zoo contends they are a school, then they still may not prohibit carry on the property...only in the buildings. Same with 51% licensees.

Yes. We lost: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=86826

rtschl wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:With respect to the Ft. Worth Zoo, was there ever a ruling from AG Paxton, or were they relying on KP-108 which refers not to Educational Institutions but non-profits leasing government property. If the Fort Worth Zoo contends they are a school, then they still may not prohibit carry on the property...only in the buildings. Same with 51% licensees.

Yes. We lost: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=86826

OK so this was KP-108 which has nothing to do with schools, the fine is not applicable (per AG), but neither is the sign legally enforceable.

Scott,

Correct. But I don't know that I would want to be the test case on an AG opinion. So I won't go to the Zoo. I wish the legislature had chosen to fix the statute to make it clear, but they didn't even bring up HB560 either.

I would be the test case for concealed carry, since the penalty is only a $200 fine...and 30.06 is clearly not applicable. 46.03 is more problematic, but I've already carried on school grounds before, when a sponsored activity was not taking place. I have carried in a 30.06 posted County office (outside of the JP court that was present).

Jusme wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:How do you sue based upon a law that doesn't take effect until Sept 1?

This is strictly a pre-emptive move, so that once the law goes into effect, there will already be a ruling in the district court, declaring the law Constitutional. The fines, and jail time issue is secondary.

I thought about this after I posted - a court can always rule and make an effective date of their ruling in the future. So I kind of answered my own question when I thought about it a bit more....

Talk about thread drift, I thought this tread was about harboring illegal aliens. What did I miss?

The Sanctuary City ban law doesn't go into effect until 9/1/17, yet the state is suing Austin now...hence the discussion about it's applicability currently.

Oldgringo wrote:Talk about thread drift, I thought this tread was about harboring illegal aliens. What did I miss?

OG, if you can't keep up take notes.

I most sincerely hope governor Abbott and his colleagues aren't just blowing political smoke, but actually work at holding back money and whatever else they can do to stop this sanctuary city garbage.

This is a step in the right direction to remain a country.

Oldgringo wrote:Talk about thread drift, I thought this tread was about harboring illegal aliens. What did I miss?

Exactly