TexasCHLforum.com

I thought court houses were already offlimits am I missing something here?

http://www.kltv.com/story/30644104/east ... ourthouses

He is wanting to post the entire county building when by law only the courtrooms themselves are off limits.

Ha. What a bunch of hot garbage. I am from the county below. Might have to travel through the area when I am there on leave next spring.

How stupid it is that our laws are written that no one knows what it really is. When someone interprets what it means, well there is still disagreement but that interpretation IS the law.

nightmare69 wrote:He is wanting to post the entire county building when by law only the courtrooms themselves are off limits.

There is a pending opinion by the AG requested by Hays county DA Wes Mau to address this issue. Here is a link to Mau's request:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... 0051KP.pdf

The Hays county DA claims that the county court house, which is a muti-use building, contains a court. As such, the entire building falls under the prohibition of TPC 46.03(A)(3) (which if true, no 30.06 sign is needed).

If Hays county is successful, SB 273 will become moot. Local governments can designate an office in each building to be "utilized by a court" and thus, the entire building is off-limits per 46.03(A)(3).

nightmare69 wrote:He is wanting to post the entire county building when by law only the courtrooms themselves are off limits.

But doesn't that fall under posting 30.06 on gov property that was just passed this session? I mean isn't it the same as Ft Worth Zoo and Houston Zoo can't be posted? So courts are off limits but the entire building cannot be posted 30.06

dhoobler wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:He is wanting to post the entire county building when by law only the courtrooms themselves are off limits.

There is a pending opinion by the AG requested by Hays county DA Wes Mau to address this issue. Here is a link to Mau's request:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... 0051KP.pdf

The Hays county DA claims that the county court house, which is a muti-use building, contains a court. As such, the entire building falls under the prohibition of TPC 46.03(A)(3) (which if true, no 30.06 sign is needed).

If Hays county is successful, SB 273 will become moot. Local governments can designate an office in each building to be "utilized by a court" and thus, the entire building is off-limits per 46.03(A)(3).

This is exactly what they have been doing for the past few years and they are mad because they can be fined for it now. They are acting like the law is something new, when it is not.

This isn't just a issue with Smith county. Most all county courthouses have metal detectors just inside the public entrance that require you to be free of any firearms and knifes. It doesn't matter if you plan on entering the courtroom or you are there for other business. Gregg, Upshur, and Marion counties all have a multi-use building that holds more than just courtrooms that require the public to be cleared free of all weapons by a deputy.

Are they're following the law...?

Abraham wrote:Are they're following the law...?

No, but the only one who can do something about it is Ken Paxton, the AG. His office has had 30.06 complaints for months, including one from me. So far, the AG has not done squat to uphold the law.

nightmare69 wrote:This isn't just a issue with Smith county. Most all county courthouses have metal detectors just inside the public entrance that require you to be free of any firearms and knifes. It doesn't matter if you plan on entering the courtroom or you are there for other business. Gregg, Upshur, and Marion counties all have a multi-use building that holds more than just courtrooms that require the public to be cleared free of all weapons by a deputy.

That's what they want, but isn't it like the Capitol, where if you have a CHL you walk around it, no problem?

I have supplemental oxygen. I set my phone, keys, change, etc on the conveyor, walk through the detector with my bottle which sets it off, the deputy says
I'm fine, I retrieved my belongings and go about my business. They could do that, if they had to, or wanted to.

Well... until the word "Sheriff" becomes the word "Dictator", then the Sheriff doesn't get what he wants, and should stay in his lane. No CHL'er is going to come in your precious courthouse and shoot up the place, and if they were, some stupid sign ain't going to stop anyone.

Abbott weighs in: http://www.whamprod.net/images/pdfs/201 ... 3-memo.pdf

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens on 1/1/16, when OC is a reality. All the complaints have been supposedly waiting for that date, so I anticipate that there certainly will be some major action taken by the AG on that date (or for sure after that day as it is a holiday). It will surely happen.

Glockster wrote:I'm looking forward to seeing what happens on 1/1/16, when OC is a reality. All the complaints have been supposedly waiting for that date, so I anticipate that there certainly will be some major action taken by the AG on that date (or for sure after that day as it is a holiday). It will surely happen.

This has nothing to do with OC or 1.1.16. This law is already in effect.