Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

This forum is for general legislative discussions not specific to any given legislative session. It will remain open.

Moderator: carlson1


Topic author
treadlightly
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm

Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#1

Post by treadlightly » Tue May 09, 2017 9:44 am

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.

User avatar

TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#2

Post by TexasJohnBoy » Tue May 09, 2017 10:01 am

How do you sue based upon a law that doesn't take effect until Sept 1?
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3470
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#3

Post by chasfm11 » Tue May 09, 2017 10:18 am

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.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#4

Post by Jusme » Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 am

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.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4527
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#5

Post by ScottDLS » Tue May 09, 2017 10:47 am

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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 797
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#6

Post by rtschl » Tue May 09, 2017 11:07 am

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
Ron
NRA Member

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4527
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#7

Post by ScottDLS » Tue May 09, 2017 11:15 am

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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 797
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#8

Post by rtschl » Tue May 09, 2017 11:26 am

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.
Ron
NRA Member

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4527
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#9

Post by ScottDLS » Tue May 09, 2017 11:34 am

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).
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#10

Post by TexasJohnBoy » Tue May 09, 2017 11:37 am

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....
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14

User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 10851
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#11

Post by Oldgringo » Tue May 09, 2017 12:24 pm

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

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4527
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#12

Post by ScottDLS » Tue May 09, 2017 12:55 pm

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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7209
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: La Grange, Texas

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#13

Post by anygunanywhere » Tue May 09, 2017 1:36 pm

Oldgringo wrote:Talk about thread drift, I thought this tread was about harboring illegal aliens. What did I miss? :headscratch
OG, if you can't keep up take notes.

:biggrinjester:
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: Its patriotism, Its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." Joseph Stalin


Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8399
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#14

Post by Abraham » Tue May 09, 2017 3:52 pm

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.

User avatar

John Galt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 9:14 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Texas sues Austin over sanctuary nonsense

#15

Post by John Galt » Tue May 09, 2017 4:00 pm

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

Post Reply

Return to “General Legislative Discussions”