WildRose wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:14 pm
As the law is written I don't see how she can justify allowing the entire building to be posted even when court is in session.
I guess that's why we have judges to make a decision, because as I read the law, I thought the AG was being, let's say "very aggressive" in stating that only the courtrooms and court offices were off limits to carry.
The judge notes in her previous ruling that 46.03 that weapons are prohibited "on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court,". She points that if you substitute the legal definition of "premises" into that sentence, you get
- weapons are prohibited "[in] the building or a portion of a building of any government court or offices utilized by the court."
That can be logically read as
- weapons are prohibited in the building of any government court,
- weapons are prohibited in any portion of a building of any government court.
To the extent that the "or" in the definition of premises provides a choice, the choice is up to the court/government.
The fines-for-signs law places explicitly restricts the power of the government to forbid licensed carry, except for the statutory exceptions in 46.03 and 46.035. But once those exceptions come in to play, the restriction is now on the carry of weapons, and fines-for-signs does not apply.
However (and I'm not sure how she really came up with this, maybe it was in the AG's arguments) that 46.035 restriction on parts of the building not used by the court applies ONLY when court is in session. That's a significant limit on the power of the courts and government to ban weapons in an entire building.