Page 12 of 16
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:02 pm
by ELB
Along the way it has been mentioned in court documents that the citizen who originally filed a complaint about licensed carry being banned was Michael Cargill. Since I seldom pay attention to Austin except when the Legislature is in session or something really really goofy happens, I was unaware the Mr. Cargill has been thorn in the side of Austin city government for quite some time now. I'm sure the city government would oppose licensed carry and guns in general without Mr. Cargill's involvement, but I'll bet his involvement put some extra hot sauce on the issue for them.
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:46 pm
by dhoobler
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am
by RicoTX
I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:25 am
by Flightmare
RicoTX wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am
I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The judge ruled that there was only evidence of violations during 6 days.
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:37 am
by jordanmills
So is this enough to go ham on all the other blatant violations that other cities/counties make?
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:24 am
by C-dub
Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:25 am
RicoTX wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am
I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The judge ruled that there was only evidence of violations during 6 days.
This sounds like a weak judge to me doing everything he or she can to lessen the penalty on the city and are only ruling against them because they can’t find a way around the law. I wonder if they really expected someone to try and gain entry every day they were open and document that.
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:25 am
by Boxerrider
C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:24 am
Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:25 am
RicoTX wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am
I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The judge ruled that there was only evidence of violations during 6 days.
This sounds like a weak judge to me doing everything he or she can to lessen the penalty on the city and are only ruling against them because they can’t find a way around the law. I wonder if they really expected someone to try and gain entry every day they were open and document that.
I bet there will be people trying to carry there today!
While I would have liked to seen the city of Austin hammered, I can see this as a step in the right direction. Now let's see some action on those complaints that have been sitting on deck.
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:00 am
by NotRPB
TV news showed Central Texas Gun Works owner Michael Cargill carrying through the metal detector there yesterday
https://www.kxan.com/video/district-cou ... 1708581635
Judge Fines Austin $9,000 For Banning Guns At City Hall
http://www.kut.org/post/judge-fines-aus ... -city-hall
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:26 am
by ELB
Dang you! I've been watching for this everyday, and you scooped me.
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:41 am
by ELB
Interesting ruling.
Recall the previously the judge ruled that even if there is a courtroom in the City Hall, licensed carry can NOT be prohibited if the court is not in session. I would not have gotten that from the parts of the law I have read, but it cuts against the impression that she is trying to be anti-carry. If followed state-wide, this ruling seems to actually opens up courthouses that consist solely of court rooms and court offices when court is not in session.
Her ruling that Austin can be fined only on the days when there's evidence that a licensed carrier attempted to enter and was illegally denied entrance is also not something I would have gotten from the law, but it parallels her ruling that entry can be prohibited only when court is in session. It makes me wonder if there is another legal principle at play here.
It appears if you want to really zing your local government for banning carry in a multi-use building, make sure you organize a posse to attempt entry at least once each day, and document the dickens out of it for use in court later.
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:28 pm
by seph
ELB wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:41 am
Interesting ruling.
Recall the previously the judge ruled that even if there is a courtroom in the City Hall, licensed carry can NOT be prohibited if the court is not in session. I would not have gotten that from the parts of the law I have read, but it cuts against the impression that she is trying to be anti-carry. If followed state-wide, this ruling seems to actually opens up courthouses that consist solely of court rooms and court offices when court is not in session.
Her ruling that Austin can be fined only on the days when there's evidence that a licensed carrier attempted to enter and was illegally denied entrance is also not something I would have gotten from the law, but it parallels her ruling that entry can be prohibited only when court is in session. It makes me wonder if there is another legal principle at play here.
It appears if you want to really zing your local government for banning carry in a multi-use building, make sure you organize a posse to attempt entry at least once each day, and document the dickens out of it for use in court later.
Remember that the City Of Austin removed the signs early in this process. They switched to verbally notifing CHL holders that they cannot enter while armed. So, the fine would not be based on the number of days that the signs were posted, but instead on days it could be proven that CHL holders were not allowed entry while armed.
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:35 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
RicoTX wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am
I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The maximum fine for the first offense is $1,500 per day per sign. All subsequent fines are either $10,000 or $10,500 per day per fine.
Chas.
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:17 pm
by Jusme
Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:35 pm
RicoTX wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am
I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The maximum fine for the first offense is $1,500 per day per sign. All subsequent fines are either $10,000 or $10,500 per day per fine.
Chas.
Charles, I'll admit, my work schedule has prevented me from keeping as close a watch on proposed bill for this session, but could you tell me if there are any plans, in this session, to address, a more streamlined, enforcement of this law? Or possibly, a better clarification, for exactly when, where, and how government agencies, can prohibit carry? These cases, take too long to be resolved, and, are too easily circumvented, by officials who don't want the State to dictate what they can do. I have written my reps, and Governor Abbot, but have gotten no definitive answers.
Thanks.
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:43 pm
by Grumpy1993
Imagine if a city posted a sign prohibiting Muslims or LBGT and got hit with a fine of less than $10,000 at the end of a lengthy court battle. Would the legislature say "the system works" or would they make it a priority to protect civil rights, perhaps by holding individuals personally liable for violating civil rights under color of law?
Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:50 pm
by ELB
I'm seeing news stories that Austin was fined $9000 for "violating Texas open carry laws."
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/guns/20 ... udge-rules
A Travis County judge ruled Thursday that the city of Austin violated open-carry laws when it stopped a licensed resident from carrying firearms at City Hall.
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/17 ... dge-rules/
"At issue is whether certain government agencies are exempt from the state's open carry law, passed in 2015, which allows Texans with a license to openly tote their handguns in a hip or shoulder holster."
ETA:
https://freebeacon.com/issues/city-of-a ... urt-rules/
The City of Austin violated the state's open carry law on six occasions, the court indicated, and ordered the city to pay a fine of $1,500 for each violation.
I guess they copy off of each other.