TexasCHLforum.com

mr1337 wrote:Waller Co. shouldn't even have standing to sue the individual.

mr1337 wrote:I hope this gets thrown out by a judge before the individual has to put any time or money into his defense.

G.A. Heath wrote:My understanding is that Waller County posted signs citing 46.03 and 46.035 not 30.06 or signs referring to a chl. If that is the case those signs might pass legal muster for avoiding a fine.

KLB wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:My understanding is that Waller County posted signs citing 46.03 and 46.035 not 30.06 or signs referring to a chl. If that is the case those signs might pass legal muster for avoiding a fine.

You're pointing out a flaw in 411.209 that has concerned me all along.

KLB wrote: ...Note that 411.209 provides for venue in Travis County. Waller County has done an end run around that. That's troubling and perhaps a reason to say the statutory procedures are exclusive.

A suit or petition under this subsection may be filed in a district court in Travis County or in a county in which the principal office of the state agency or political subdivision is located.

ELB wrote:

KLB wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:My understanding is that Waller County posted signs citing 46.03 and 46.035 not 30.06 or signs referring to a chl. If that is the case those signs might pass legal muster for avoiding a fine.

You're pointing out a flaw in 411.209 that has concerned me all along.

As I recall, the AG opined that a sign does not have to be a 30.06/30.07 sign, nor need there even be a sign. If a government entity tries to bar a license holder from carrying in an area he is legally entitled to carry in, then the governmental entity is doing so illegally.

Papa_Tiger wrote:

ELB wrote:

KLB wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:My understanding is that Waller County posted signs citing 46.03 and 46.035 not 30.06 or signs referring to a chl. If that is the case those signs might pass legal muster for avoiding a fine.

You're pointing out a flaw in 411.209 that has concerned me all along.

As I recall, the AG opined that a sign does not have to be a 30.06/30.07 sign, nor need there even be a sign. If a government entity tries to bar a license holder from carrying in an area he is legally entitled to carry in, then the governmental entity is doing so illegally.

The excluded communication includes oral notice per GC 411.209. It doesn't matter what their sign says if they have a security guard at the secured entrance backing it up orally. The crux of the matter is that they want "Premises" to mean "building" when referring to any structure that houses a court or office utilized by the court, whereas the Texas AG has defined it more narrowly as the "portion of building" that is the actual courtroom or office (See KP-0047 and KP-0049).

(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

Russell wrote:If Holcomb's lawyer has any experience at all, he'll demand a change of venue.

mojo84 wrote:I'm just curious how much you internet lawyers charge per hour.

JALLEN wrote:This is the ordinary declarayory relief action, the form whenever there is a dispute over interpretation of a written instrument, etc.

While the complaint against Holcomb does not expressly name him as the complainant, there is no doubt that is who filed it. If it turns out otherwise, the case will be dismissed because there is no dispute, effectively, with Holcomb.

I'm not conversant with civil procedure in Texas enough to evaluate this procedurally, the form of pleading, etc.

A District Judge is not presdisposed to rule in anyone's favor, the county or otherwise. There are hundreds of cases where political subdivisions have lost cases against ordinary citizens when the facts and law supported that result. If a judge has reason to feel otherwise, (s)he must recuse him or herself. I have known of cases where, because of strong local feelings, or ties to the community of one party, the entire local bench recused themselves, and the matter was heard by a visiting judge. Judges have a more than ordinary interest in courtroom security, of course. That is likely more of an influence for an individual judge than anything else.

Eventually, courts will interpret these provisions. It will very likely be the Texas Supreme Court to have the final say.

It might have been cheaper for Holcomb to file a complaint in his county and leave it to others to file in their counties. "Don't want no trouble, don't start none."