TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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."

The suit is utter garbage and suggesting that a person should not avail himself of a statutorily proscribed procedure to prevent continuing violation of Texas law by a governmental entity boggles the mind. BTW, I'm hardly a fan of Terry Holcomb.

Chas.

I agree Charles, Mr. Holcomb has definitely not made himself a friend of those of us who did things the right way to get legislation passed, and he has probably brought a lot of this on himself with his tactics, but, with that said, my concern is that if, Waller County gets a positive ruling regarding the posting of signs, it will set a precedence, that other left leaning g municipalities will follow to try and circumvent, not only the, intent of the legislation, but will create a huge log jam in lawsuits, and courtroom law that will cause the Legislature to have to address on a case by case basis for years to come. And may cause others to be hesitant to file legal complaints, out of fear of facing similar lawsuits.
I'll admit my understanding of these issues is very limited, and I may be completely on the wrong track, and that's why I was hoping you could bring some clarity to this issue.
Any insight would be appreciated.

All of this will be moot if we get serious about removing all off-limits areas. I'm tired of seeing this issue pushed to the back burner for over 10 years now. If we can't get it passed with all of the crap that zoos, libraries and other dishonest local officials are doing, then it will never pass.

Chas.

JALLEN wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Jallen,
Your example of paying fees with company money goes to my point. You were spending company money, not yours. You were also getting paid to manage those lawsuits along with other duties. The government entity is paying attorney's fees with other people's money.

The defendant, which is a private citizen, has to pay out of his pocket even though he is following the law to a T without taking advantage of a "loophole".

In the insurance company case, it was money I was responsible for. In the other cases, it was money that belonged to a company I owned all or in part. The point isn't the money, but the responsibility, a concept that seems to be gradually fading from our DNA.

Let me leave you with the wisdom of a great man. ""Do right, and risk the consequences." -- Sam Houston

Jusme wrote:Are courthouses, in their entirety, on the list of places that we plan on trying to remove from prohibited places?

All places that law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms should apply to LTC holders. The only places they have to disarm are secured portions of jails and prisons. Courthouses, including court rooms, even off duty, police can carry either openly or concealed. TABC 51% locations, LEOs can carry. Professional, collegiate, and high school sporting events are ok for LEOs. All Texas school district premises, on duty or off are ok for police to carry. There is no sound reason to restrict those of us with LTC from carrying in these locations also. We have proven ourselves to be even more law abiding than LEOs, and it is only the prevailing attitudes of those who think only the police should be armed, that have kept us from having that freedom. Of course that still only applies to LTC holders, and doesn't touch on Constitutional Carry.

mojo84 wrote:

Jusme wrote:Are courthouses, in their entirety, on the list of places that we plan on trying to remove from prohibited places?

All places that law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms should apply to LTC holders. The only places they have to disarm are secured portions of jails and prisons. Courthouses, including court rooms, even off duty, police can carry either openly or concealed. TABC 51% locations, LEOs can carry. Professional, collegiate, and high school sporting events are ok for LEOs. All Texas school district premises, on duty or off are ok for police to carry. There is no sound reason to restrict those of us with LTC from carrying in these locations also. We have proven ourselves to be even more law abiding than LEOs, and it is only the prevailing attitudes of those who think only the police should be armed, that have kept us from having that freedom. Of course that still only applies to LTC holders, and doesn't touch on Constitutional Carry.

If I recall correctly, Charles indicated his position is those directly involved in the court proceeding or related to those that are involved should not be allowed to carry in the courtrooms. That is off the top of my head and my recollection may be off some.

I can accept that restriction as I know court cases can get very heated and emotions can run very high.

mojo84 wrote:SewTexas,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. First I've heard of it.

https://slappedintexas.com/primer/

mojo84 wrote:

Jusme wrote:Are courthouses, in their entirety, on the list of places that we plan on trying to remove from prohibited places?

All places that law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms should apply to LTC holders. The only places they have to disarm are secured portions of jails and prisons. Courthouses, including court rooms, even off duty, police can carry either openly or concealed. TABC 51% locations, LEOs can carry. Professional, collegiate, and high school sporting events are ok for LEOs. All Texas school district premises, on duty or off are ok for police to carry. There is no sound reason to restrict those of us with LTC from carrying in these locations also. We have proven ourselves to be even more law abiding than LEOs, and it is only the prevailing attitudes of those who think only the police should be armed, that have kept us from having that freedom. Of course that still only applies to LTC holders, and doesn't touch on Constitutional Carry.

If I recall correctly, Charles indicated his position is those directly involved in the court proceeding or related to those that are involved should not be allowed to carry in the courtrooms. That is off the top of my head and my recollection may be off some.

I can accept that restriction as I know court cases can get very heated and emotions can run very high.

Jusme wrote:Are courthouses, in their entirety, on the list of places that we plan on trying to remove from prohibited places?

All places that law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms should apply to LTC holders. The only places they have to disarm are secured portions of jails and prisons. Courthouses, including court rooms, even off duty, police can carry either openly or concealed. TABC 51% locations, LEOs can carry. Professional, collegiate, and high school sporting events are ok for LEOs. All Texas school district premises, on duty or off are ok for police to carry. There is no sound reason to restrict those of us with LTC from carrying in these locations also. We have proven ourselves to be even more law abiding than LEOs, and it is only the prevailing attitudes of those who think only the police should be armed, that have kept us from having that freedom. Of course that still only applies to LTC holders, and doesn't touch on Constitutional Carry.

mojo84 wrote:

KLB wrote:

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

Sorry you didn't get the joke.

KLB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

KLB wrote:

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

Sorry you didn't get the joke.

I liked the joke, but I wasn't wearing my glasses. I thought the emoji I picked was smiling.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Jusme wrote:Are courthouses, in their entirety, on the list of places that we plan on trying to remove from prohibited places?

All places that law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms should apply to LTC holders. The only places they have to disarm are secured portions of jails and prisons. Courthouses, including court rooms, even off duty, police can carry either openly or concealed. TABC 51% locations, LEOs can carry. Professional, collegiate, and high school sporting events are ok for LEOs. All Texas school district premises, on duty or off are ok for police to carry. There is no sound reason to restrict those of us with LTC from carrying in these locations also. We have proven ourselves to be even more law abiding than LEOs, and it is only the prevailing attitudes of those who think only the police should be armed, that have kept us from having that freedom. Of course that still only applies to LTC holders, and doesn't touch on Constitutional Carry.

If I recall correctly, Charles indicated his position is those directly involved in the court proceeding or related to those that are involved should not be allowed to carry in the courtrooms. That is off the top of my head and my recollection may be off some.

I can accept that restriction as I know court cases can get very heated and emotions can run very high.

You are correct. The bill I drafted for the 2017 session allows LTCs to carry in courts, offices, etc., as long as they are not a party or witness in a case that is then being heard in that court. In larger counties like Harris and Dallas Counties, most folks have no reason to enter a court building unless they are involved in a case. In smaller counties, courts are often in multi-use buildings and this is where my bill will have the greatest impact in terms of courts and court buildings. Spectators will be able to carry in courtroom, but those typically are few in number.

Chas.