TexasCHLforum.com

dawgfishboy wrote:Is providing a secure place to lock it up while in the building too much to ask (or a bad idea)? Some of us prefer to ride mass transit vs driving downtown when summonsed.

A nice idea, but probably a nonstarter for the same reason airports no longer have lockers. It's place to leave a bomb.

KLB wrote:

dawgfishboy wrote:Is providing a secure place to lock it up while in the building too much to ask (or a bad idea)? Some of us prefer to ride mass transit vs driving downtown when summonsed.

A nice idea, but probably a nonstarter for the same reason airports no longer have lockers. It's place to leave a bomb.

Not if what you put in there is monitored.

RoyGBiv wrote:

KLB wrote:

dawgfishboy wrote:Is providing a secure place to lock it up while in the building too much to ask (or a bad idea)? Some of us prefer to ride mass transit vs driving downtown when summonsed.

A nice idea, but probably a nonstarter for the same reason airports no longer have lockers. It's place to leave a bomb.

Not if what you put in there is monitored.

That, and it should only be accessible with LTC accompanied by a LEO or security detail.

dawgfishboy wrote:Is providing a secure place to lock it up while in the building too much to ask (or a bad idea)? Some of us prefer to ride mass transit vs driving downtown when summonsed.

I don't think it would be too much of a financial burden for the counties to bear, all county jails have storage lockers for LEO's to put their guns before entering the secured areas. They could even provide them at a fee, say .50 cents a day, to offset the cost.

Jusme wrote:

dawgfishboy wrote:Is providing a secure place to lock it up while in the building too much to ask (or a bad idea)? Some of us prefer to ride mass transit vs driving downtown when summonsed.

I don't think it would be too much of a financial burden for the counties to bear, all county jails have storage lockers for LEO's to put their guns before entering the secured areas. They could even provide them at a fee, say .50 cents a day, to offset the cost.

Based on past reading (but not personal experience), PA has had a "locker law" for courthouses for many years. This may offer the Legislature or TSRA experience to draw from if carrying there cannot pass.

SA-TX

RoyGBiv wrote: Jurors?

I hated having to lock my gun in the car serving jury duty in FTW.

But preemption needs top be in place. In Smith county, the juror parking is off-limits for firearms...even states it on the summons.

RogueUSMC wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote: Jurors?

I hated having to lock my gun in the car serving jury duty in FTW.

But preemption needs top be in place. In Smith county, the juror parking is off-limits for firearms...even states it on the summons.

Assuming this is Smith County Texas. Unless it's federal property then the notice is invalid and may be in violation of the fines for signs law.

G.A. Heath wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote: Jurors?

I hated having to lock my gun in the car serving jury duty in FTW.

But preemption needs top be in place. In Smith county, the juror parking is off-limits for firearms...even states it on the summons.

Assuming this is Smith County Texas. Unless it's federal property then the notice is invalid and may be in violation of the fines for signs law.

Smith County doesn't seem to be too concerned about laws regarding LTC and signs.

SA-TX wrote:
Based on past reading (but not personal experience), PA has had a "locker law" for courthouses for many years. This may offer the Legislature or TSRA experience to draw from if carrying there cannot pass.

SA-TX

State of Washington also requires court houses to provide either stationary lock boxes big enough to hold a pistol or an official to receive weapons for safekeeping. The boxes must be located in the same building as the court proceedings. The local legislative authority is liable for any negligence that causes damage to or loss of the pistol weapon while it is in the lockbox or care of the official.

ETA: By the way, this website has a list of courtroom security and firearms restrictions in every state:
http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Courthouse-F ... t=Firearms in Courthouses and Courtrooms

ELB wrote:ETA: By the way, this website has a list of courtroom security and firearms restrictions in every state:
http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Courthouse-F ... t=Firearms in Courthouses and Courtrooms

Thanks. Couldn't get link to work for some reason.

Hopefully this link works.

Texas AG just gave a 15 day cure notice to Waller County:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... thouse.pdf

ELB wrote:Texas AG just gave a 15 day cure notice to Waller County:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... thouse.pdf

Awesome! Well done OAG!

While I may not be a lawyer I suspect that this gives Holcomb's attorney a major weapon against Waller County. If nothing else it should allow him to demand a stay pending the outcome of the AG's actions, and should even get a dismissal of some (probably all) claims made by Waller County now or after a decision is made in any suit the AG brings against Waller County.

Waller County might try to get a stay or injunction against the suit the AG's office will file by claiming one of their claims in this suit may having bearing on anything the AG's office might bring against them, but I would think a judge would decide that the the claim in the Holcomb case lacks standing in light of the AG's actions as the government code says that is where the issues of the signs being compliant or not is to be decided. Additionally any suit the AG brings should get priority as a decision there can lead to fines that are cumulative over time.

G.A. Heath wrote:While I may not be a lawyer I suspect that this gives Holcomb's attorney a major weapon against Waller County. If nothing else it should allow him to demand a stay pending the outcome of the AG's actions, and should even get a dismissal of some (probably all) claims made by Waller County now or after a decision is made in any suit the AG brings against Waller County.

Waller County might try to get a stay or injunction against the suit the AG's office will file by claiming one of their claims in this suit may having bearing on anything the AG's office might bring against them, but I would think a judge would decide that the the claim in the Holcomb case lacks standing in light of the AG's actions as the government code says that is where the issues of the signs being compliant or not is to be decided. Additionally any suit the AG brings should get priority as a decision there can lead to fines that are cumulative over time.

I agree, and the fact that the AG lawsuit will not take place in the same building that the ruling is in dispute, will take precedence over any appellate ruling.