Gov. Abbott clarifies 30.06 in gov't buildings...

[ScottDLS]

This is quite good guidance from the AG/Governor. As the lawyers will undoubtedly tell you, nothing binds the courts other than a published opinion by an appellate level court. But so what, that's as it's always been. The AG in these types of opinions is generally trying to clarify the legislature's intent for prosecuting attorneys and state agencies. My personal feeling is that the legislature's intent is already quite clear, but now the law has some teeth with the civil fines.

State agencies that are not headed by elected officials are presumably to follow the direction of the Governor in regulatory and operational matters. So my opinion is that this published document is very good. Sure the courts can rule any way they want (theoretically), but absent other guidance, why should they not follow this?

Remember, quite a bit was read into Democrat AG Morales' interpretation of the original CHL law especially as it related to criminal trespass (30.05). I don't think much of his opinion was supported by the law OR previous court rulings, but with nothing else to go on CHL instructors and LEO's would generally tell the public that his opinion was what they followed. Then in 1997, 30.06 was passed which provided much more clarity. Still there have been very few court cases and no other AG opinions that I'm aware of since. So everyone was relying in AG Morales 20 year old interpretation of a law that had been changed multiple times by the Legislature.

Now we have a very pro LTC opinion by the AG and that is a much better situation than we've had since CHL started. In criminal cases the burden is very squarely on the State to prove the facts and the elements of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt. An AG opinion could certainly sow some "doubt" on a bogus prosecution.

[nightmare69]

Good read, however, does the same apply to multi purpose county buildings that require the public to go through metal detectors and bag checks?

My county building is 6 floors and both public entrances require the public to go through security no matter is you are there for jury duty or to see the county clerk.

My question is, if you are there for business other than court does the sheriff office have the legal authority to require a licensee to disarm?