TexasCHLforum.com

jbirds1210 wrote: That is a harsh generalization. You are assuming "they" don't already do this. By they I'll assume (I realize what assuming can equal) you mean law enforcement in general which I know to be completely false. I've always respected and enjoyed shooting with you, but I'll say humbly that lumping everyone into one group is always risky and may not include the majority.

You assumed wrong.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ...
... So it seems the only thing left here is for the AG to start issuing fines. ...

Not at all.

The AG has to take his opinions to court with him and convince a judge that licensed carry cannot be legally banned the entire building when only parts of it have a courtroom in it, and that fines should be assessed. The AG is the state's lawyer, not some kind of super-judge.

The AG's opinion very narrowly interprets "court or offices essential to court," but numerous county judges, commissioners courts, and regular judges (via letter, not judicial opinion) interpret it very expansively. This has yet to be settled as law in Texas.

And for the same reason, until the AG's interpretation is enforced by a court (and probably by an appeals court at that), any LEO that enforces the more expansive interpretation is going to win any kind of lawsuit for doing so. I think he has to violate a pretty clear, settled point in law to be successfully sued for anything. No matter how clear we think it is, or want it to be, when there's still a bunch of lawyers arguing about it and it hasn't even been to court yet I don't think any peace officer can be held responsible for knowing more than they do.

Solaris wrote:

jbirds1210 wrote: That is a harsh generalization. You are assuming "they" don't already do this. By they I'll assume (I realize what assuming can equal) you mean law enforcement in general which I know to be completely false. I've always respected and enjoyed shooting with you, but I'll say humbly that lumping everyone into one group is always risky and may not include the majority.

You assumed wrong.

Fair enough, my apologies

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Solaris wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: To be clear, a law enforcement agency that is threatening to make arrests for something that they know is not illegal is clearly in the wrong, and I would hope that numerous other laws prohibit this type of action. If I, as a "mere" citizen was to do the same, I would be looking at charges of assault, imprisonment, and kidnapping at a minimum.

And LE wonders why respect for law enforcement officers is at an all-time low. They need to grow a backbone and tell politicians they are not going to be pawns and will not enforce illegal laws.

A good start would be removing all protections for LEO's related to their ignorance of the law. If a LEO is not sure whether something is illegal, then they need to take a few minutes to be sure (if it is important / potentially harmful), or just assume that the action is legal (if minor / harmless) since all actions are legal unless there is a law against it.

30.07 is a good example. It's a new law that got a lot of hype. I would assume that every LEO would take the time to read the law and make sure they understand the exact requirements for signage, etc. I would also hope that every LE agency would have training and other resources available to answer any questions that officers have about the specifics of this law.

Emphasis mine. I think we have lost that concept.

This entire thing is a huge catch-22 with conflict of interest issues. A judge/court is going responsible for deciding if people can carry guns in an entire building their court is in. I wonder which way they would decide.