TexasCHLforum.com

WildRose wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:44 pm ...
One can argue it's poorly written since a judge can make the argument above but then there's no way to craft any legislation today that activist judges will not find someway around in their rulings.

Using the judge's interpretation of legislative intent seems far more "activist" and dangerous than simply using the text as they legislature wrote it.


In other news: The website of the Texas Attorney General has undergone a make over, and … they screwed it up. Most of the 30.06 stuff has disappeared, the only remaining artifact is a web page where you can register a complaint about government entities. And I had to use the search function to find that. I was surprised to see on that page a "30.06 Complaint Hot Line" followed by a phone number. That's new! So I called it. It was answered with a cautious "hello?" Turns out it was an office cell phone recently issued to a guy who works in the money-laundering office of the OAG. He said he had been getting some other odd calls lately too.

So I started calling around various contact numbers to find somebody to complain to about the missing stuff. I kind of bounced around between the receptionist and some ladies in various "complaint" offices (e.g. Child Support complaints, Consumer Complaints) because the IT specialists were not answering their phones, but eventually found a lady (I think in the Consumer Complaints office) who made notes about what was missing and promised to hunt down the IT specialists. She said they were not thrilled with the new look, there were a lot of complaints coming in about the rest of the website as well.

Paxton v City of Austin has another hearing scheduled for 03 Dec 2018 at 0900. I am calling the OAG's office tomorrow to see if I can find out what happened at the hearing on 17 Sep, and what issues remain to be settled in December.

I was able to contact someone in the OAG, and it turns out that the hearing that was supposed to happen in September did not occur because one of the attorneys for the OAG had a death in the family and could not attend the hearing, so it was postponed. That unfortunately put the schedule at the mercy of the attorneys for the city -- altho I think the OAG was ready to proceed later in September, the city said they were not available until closer to the end of the year. So that became a 03 Dec hearing date.

Stay tuned.

If only the city kept accumulating a fine for each day they were in violation while this process continued. If that were the case and the fine was due when the decision made and they lost they wouldn’t want to wait so long I bet.

C-dub wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:26 am If only the city kept accumulating a fine for each day they were in violation while this process continued. If that were the case and the fine was due when the decision made and they list they wouldn’t want to wait so long I bet.

If they believe they can win the case, they don't care how long they delay. Additionally, it is just money that comes out of the taxpayer's wallet, not the city staff's personal income.

C-dub wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:26 am If only the city kept accumulating a fine for each day they were in violation while this process continued. If that were the case and the fine was due when the decision made and they lost they wouldn’t want to wait so long I bet.

IIRC the fine starts accumulating 15 days after the OAG issues (or the City receives) the OAG's violation letter (and the City has not cured the issue). I believe the OAG's letter was issued in July of 2016, but I don't have access to it right now.

In this case the judge has ruled that the City is not in violation by forbidding licensed carry in the non-court part of the building when court is in session, but it can be in violation when court is NOT in session. I believe the OAG still has to show that the city was improperly preventing licensed carry when the court was not in session, and if the OAG makes that case, a fine should follow. It will be interesting to see how that is calculated.

ELB wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:34 am

C-dub wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:26 am If only the city kept accumulating a fine for each day they were in violation while this process continued. If that were the case and the fine was due when the decision made and they lost they wouldn’t want to wait so long I bet.

IIRC the fine starts accumulating 15 days after the OAG issues (or the City receives) the OAG's violation letter (and the City has not cured the issue). I believe the OAG's letter was issued in July of 2016, but I don't have access to it right now.

In this case the judge has ruled that the City is not in violation by forbidding licensed carry in the non-court part of the building when court is in session, but it can be in violation when court is NOT in session. I believe the OAG still has to show that the city was improperly preventing licensed carry when the court was not in session, and if the OAG makes that case, a fine should follow. It will be interesting to see how that is calculated.

Does that mean that there can be no decision about whether or not the judge was wrong to say that the city could ban LTC’s from carrying in the non-court areas even when the courts are in session?

C-dub wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:21 pm
Does that mean that there can be no decision about whether or not the judge was wrong to say that the city could ban LTC’s from carrying in the non-court areas even when the courts are in session?

A trial court's decision can be appealed to an appellate court. I am sure that at least one party to the case will do so, and maybe both parties will appeal different parts of the decision. The immediate result of that appeal with be that nothing will change at any courthouse -- those courthouse's that want to ban licensed carry from an entire building will continue to do so. The potential fines will be accumulating...but only against those political entities that some citizen has lodged a complaint against with the AG.

For reasons unknown to me, the hearing date for Paxton v City of Austin has slid back to January 07, 2019 at 09:00 AM.

With only ten days remaining, it looks like Austin is going to get away with it for another year.

Alf wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:10 pm With only ten days remaining, it looks like Austin is going to get away with it for another year.

However, I believe that adds to their fine if they are found to be in violation.

ELB wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:22 pm

Alf wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:10 pm With only ten days remaining, it looks like Austin is going to get away with it for another year.

However, I believe that adds to their fine if they are found to be in violation.

At this rate, the people who posted the signs will be retired before that happens, and we all know the fine won't come out of their pensions!

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:13 pm For reasons unknown to me, the hearing date for Paxton v City of Austin has slid back to January 07, 2019 at 09:00 AM.

I have since learned the trial was rescheduled from Sep 2017 to yesterday because one of the OAG's lawyers had a death in the family just before the trial was to start. Rescheduling was more or less at the mercy of the City of Austin's stated availability for trial (for which I doubt they were in any hurry), so it was rescheduled to start yesterday at 0900.

I just checked with someone in the OAG's office, and found the trial is scheduled for two days, so it should wrap up today. I may learn more later in the week, and there may be media coverage of it. No time frame for the judge's decision, of course. Keep standing by.

An Austin American-Stateman article on yesterday's trial:

State tells judge armed Austin man should have been allowed in City Hall

Paxton’s office is asking state District Judge Lora Livingston to require the city to comply with the law and to fine Austin $1,500 a day for the first 500 days it kept firearm holders out of the building since the lawsuit was filed.

After listening to final arguments Tuesday, Livingston said she would rule later.

This is interesting:

The judge hinted at one point that Paxton’s office had no choice but to file the lawsuit because the city told licensed firearm holders they could not come into City Hall but did not reveal that doing so would not trigger criminal charges.

It appears the judge is saying that if the armed LTC holder had entered despite being told he couldn't, he would not have broken the law.

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:45 pm An Austin American-Stateman article on yesterday's trial:

State tells judge armed Austin man should have been allowed in City Hall

Paxton’s office is asking state District Judge Lora Livingston to require the city to comply with the law and to fine Austin $1,500 a day for the first 500 days it kept firearm holders out of the building since the lawsuit was filed.

After listening to final arguments Tuesday, Livingston said she would rule later.

This is interesting:

The judge hinted at one point that Paxton’s office had no choice but to file the lawsuit because the city told licensed firearm holders they could not come into City Hall but did not reveal that doing so would not trigger criminal charges.

It appears the judge is saying that if the armed LTC holder had entered despite being told he couldn't, he would not have broken the law.

In other words he would have beaten the rap but not the ride!