TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:Texas AG just gave a 15 day cure notice to Waller County:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... thouse.pdf

Awesome! Well done OAG!

G.A. Heath wrote:This is about much more than firearms. This is about who is in charge and who can involve themeselves.

In this case, the method for citizen involvement is laid out in the law. It doesn't matter who files the complaint, per the law, the offending governmental entity must be notified and given time to correct the issue. If they do not, the matter can be referred to the AG. In this case, the governmental entity is trying to sidestep the law rather than letting the process work. To me, the crux of this is what is the purpose of law if it is just going to be ignored?

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).

Frankly, this kind of behavior in addition to the way that some of the universities have defined their off-limits areas gives me hope that the Legislature will come down hard on all areas off-limits to LTC holders in the 2017 session.

Lynyrd wrote:Well, in today's day and age a person can be sued for just about anything. But, in this case, it seems to me that Waller County has a beef with the AG and his recent rulings on courthouses. I think they just picked who they thought would be the easier target.

Speculating on their discussion, I can imagine these words, "Let's see, should we sue the Attorney General, or a private citizen?"

Maybe they assumed that with his current ongoing legal troubles, it would hard to schedule a court date with the AG.