TexasCHLforum.com

That is very good news, indeed!

It is good to see that the nobility can be forced to follow the law, just like us poor peasants.

But I think the potential monetary penalty is more than the letter from the OAG indicated. In the last paragraph of the letter, he states that:

Be advised that each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate violation. TEX. Gov'T
CODE § 41 l.209(c). Accordingly, beginning on the sixteenth (16th) day following the receipt of
this written notice the county may be liable for a proposed maximum penalty of $1,500 for each
day the county remains in violation...

But just before that paragraph, he points out that:

Section 4 l 1.209(b) of the Government Code authorizes the court to assess civil penalties in the
amount of:
• Not less than $1,000 and not more than $1,500 for the first violation; and
• Not less than $10,000 and not more than $10,500 for the second or a subsequent violation.

So doesn't that mean that if the county does not remedy the situation, that the first day fine would be $1,500, but on each following day, the fine would be up to $10,500 per day for each additional day? Not that it makes a lot of difference, but if it were directed at me, I think the possibility of a fine of $10,500 a day would definitely get my attention!

But either way, absolutely great news!

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.

I know many of the campuses refused to provide storage because 1: you'd have to un conceal to store - and 2: the added risk of potential accidental discharge while unholstering and reholstering a weapon.

TexasTornado wrote:

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.

I know many of the campuses refused to provide storage because 1: you'd have to un conceal to store - and 2: the added risk of potential accidental discharge while unholstering and reholstering a weapon.

That's never been an issue at jails/prisons for LEOs. In fact if in uniform, the weapon had to be unholstered, and placed into the storage locker. I agree that on campus, where only CC is allowed it may be an issue, but in a courthouse, where OC is allowed. It should be no issue. People still have the idea, that only LEOs are "safe" enough to handle firearms.

Jusme wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

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.

I know many of the campuses refused to provide storage because 1: you'd have to un conceal to store - and 2: the added risk of potential accidental discharge while unholstering and reholstering a weapon.

That's never been an issue at jails/prisons for LEOs. In fact if in uniform, the weapon had to be unholstered, and placed into the storage locker. I agree that on campus, where only CC is allowed it may be an issue, but in a courthouse, where OC is allowed. It should be no issue. People still have the idea, that only LEOs are "safe" enough to handle firearms.

Just pointing out arguments that might be made against storage.

Jusme wrote:
That's never been an issue at jails/prisons for LEOs. .

I would wager that there has been an issue or two. :) It's just that that risk of having a gun in close to inmates is greater, probably much greater, than the risk that some LEO is going to ND while disarming/rearming. But neither risk is zero.

In the case of a university or college, with the exception of maybe the MRI center, what they are really balancing is the risk of an ND while in the building/classroom/lab etc versus the risk of an ND while locking the gun up in a box. I think it is correct to judge the risk of ND while disarming/locking in a box/rearming is vastly greater than just leaving it in the holster while the carrier goes about his business.

In the dorms the calculation changes again, because the carrier is going to need to take the gun off sooner or later, and he needs a place to stash it.

thatguyoverthere wrote:...

So doesn't that mean that if the county does not remedy the situation, that the first day fine would be $1,500, but on each following day, the fine would be up to $10,500 per day for each additional day?

That's how I read it originally too, but in another thread Mr. Cotton pointed out this is not the case. For the $10,500 fine to kick in, they have already have lost in court at the $1500 level -- and then STILL not removed the signs or policy or whatever it was they were doing. I think the law is poorly written, what is meant by subsequent/second violations seems mushy, but apparently the lawyers understand it.

ELB wrote:

Jusme wrote:
That's never been an issue at jails/prisons for LEOs. .

I would wager that there has been an issue or two. :) It's just that that risk of having a gun in close to inmates is greater, probably much greater, than the risk that some LEO is going to ND while disarming/rearming. But neither risk is zero.

In the case of a university or college, with the exception of maybe the MRI center, what they are really balancing is the risk of an ND while in the building/classroom/lab etc versus the risk of an ND while locking the gun up in a box. I think it is correct to judge the risk of ND while disarming/locking in a box/rearming is vastly greater than just leaving it in the holster while the carrier goes about his business.

In the dorms the calculation changes again, because the carrier is going to need to take the gun off sooner or later, and he needs a place to stash it.

I fully agree, There is no legitimate reason to force someone to disarm, especially, in an area that LEOs are allowed to carry.
Even if they are party to a case, that is not a result of their LEO duties, they are still allowed to carry, even in a divorce/custody hearing in which they are directly involved. I can't see how county officials think that LTC holders are more likely to start shooting than LEOs, even if the decision doesn't go their way. This is one thing that definitely needs to be addressed in the next session.

See attached for a press release from Waller County DA. This will get interesting, especially for legislation next year.

locke_n_load wrote:See attached for a press release from Waller County DA.

The dollar amount is a red herring. They're still ignoring the fact that Holcomb should not have been made a party to this suit.

They have doubled down on stupid...

A court case may be EXACTLY what we need. That will get case law solidified that it is only inside of courtrooms that is prohibited... not the entire city / county building just because there is one clerk in there. (City Hall in Benbrook... I'm talking about you)

Seems to me the DA in Waller County should remember two very important facts.

1.) He is elected and is blowing tax payer funds on a personal crusade. This can and should bite him in the rear next election cycle.
2.) While he is certainly entitled to his own Personal oppinion with regards to the 2nd Ammendment, he can't in fact change the laws of the land.

I hope to enjoy watching him get a beat down in court. It is my hope the good people of Waller County will make him personally liable for any financial burdens caused by his egregious attacks of a private citizen. He and his ilk have no place as civil servants, he is a bully through and through.

The DA ignores a very important, critical fact, that the law now provides that only duly licensed LTC holders are authorized to carry in a courthouse, short of the actual court facilities. The general public is not.

locke_n_load wrote:...This will get interesting...

locke_n_load wrote:See attached for a press release from Waller County DA. This will get interesting, especially for legislation next year.

The DA says guns are not allowed in hospitals. He obviously does not know the law as guns are allowed unless posted.

It's already more interesting than that. There are facebook screen caps on a blog that show that the Waller County Judge claims that the Killer of 5 Dallas PD officers made a threat to put a bullet in the head of the Waller County District Attorney to "solve" the courthouse gun issue, even though the court house gun issue came to light after the shooter was dead. I would post a link to that blog but there is language on it that would not pass muster here. Google is your friend, do a search for waller county blog and choose the one hosted by a google service. Then you can dig through the first page of stuff where you can find a screen cap with a picture of the killer. I will warn you that this blog is hosted by people who REALLY REALLY REALLY don't like the current county administration and they may need to be medicated.