TRAVIS COUNTY vs. SAXET GUN SHOW

[cb1000rider]

On what basis could they sue? This is not an attack, this is a question on what grounds would be the suit.

If a government that owns a facility decides to invent arbitrary rules that aren't on the books as a precursor to a lease, that might be an issue for a vendor who makes income from leasing that facility.
If it was private property, I'd have no issue with arbitrary rules. However, this is a "public" facility...

I dunno how it will shake out. I just don't like it in combination with LEOs essentially bullying private property owners that were allowing these events. Note, I don't blame individual LEOs, they were enforcing policy of the department and the agenda of the city/county.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Due process. Equal protection. Freedom of speech. Take your pick.

Freedom of speech? Its not being limited criminally.

Due process/ equal protection-how? Its not a protected class being ingfringed upon in violation of Civil Rights legislation. Can someone help me out here?

EDIT: Again not trying to be hostile here, just looking for what would be an actual actionable ground thats worked before.

[bbobb]

30.06 is a separate issue.

Only to those upset he's reaping what he sowed.

[JSThane]

Due process. Equal protection. Freedom of speech. Take your pick.

Freedom of speech? Its not being limited criminally.

Due process/ equal protection-how? Its not a protected class being ingfringed upon in violation of Civil Rights legislation. Can someone help me out here?

EDIT: Again not trying to be hostile here, just looking for what would be an actual actionable ground thats worked before.

I believe it would be equal protection, in that one could (hopefully) show the only difference between a gun show and another show is a politically charged issue with relevance to the Constitution. That is, Saxet was denied because of involvement with firearms, something Constitutionally protected, and the denial was therefore itself political and an effort to induce a chilling effect upon Second Amendment rights.

It would hopefully put Constitutional rights in line with (and ahead of) any other "protected" class.

I wish I had other cases to cite, but my memory is horrible for such things, which is one reason I'm not a lawyer. I don't know if there even have been any other cases using this reasoning. It shouldn't matter, because right and wrong and the law are not dependent on precedent, except it might, because the courts are dependent on precedent.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Thanks JSThane. Thats helpful.

[Dori]

I believe it would be equal protection, in that one could (hopefully) show the only difference between a gun show and another show is a politically charged issue with relevance to the Constitution. That is, Saxet was denied because of involvement with firearms, something Constitutionally protected, and the denial was therefore itself political and an effort to induce a chilling effect upon Second Amendment rights.

I thought they were denied because they refused to agree to the county's requirement for background checks on all gun sales. We can argue if background checks are constitutional but so far SCOTUS hasn't killed NICS.

[G.A. Heath]

Any lawsuit filed against Travis County would most likely be done under the Texas Preemption law that prohibits the city from regulating firearms. This would be a clear violation as they are regulating the sale of firearms on county property.

[Scott Farkus]

Due process. Equal protection. Freedom of speech. Take your pick.

Freedom of speech? Its not being limited criminally.

Due process/ equal protection-how? Its not a protected class being ingfringed upon in violation of Civil Rights legislation. Can someone help me out here?

EDIT: Again not trying to be hostile here, just looking for what would be an actual actionable ground thats worked before.

Freedom of speech: Gun shows are more than commercial ventures. They are a gathering of like-minded individuals visibly exercising, promoting and celebrating the 2nd Amendment. Sam Biscoe is in all likelihood politically hostile to gun rights and would prefer to suppress any speech that promotes them; ergo, his illegal attempt to eliminate gun shows in Travis County is a form of suppression of the free speech rights of the organizer and attendees. A similar (and perhaps better) argument can be made with respect to freedom of assembly, also supposedly protected by the First Amendment.

Due Process: The Saxet promoter has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which the government cannot deny without due process of law. One means by which he pursues happiness is through promotion of the Saxet gun show. He has chosen to utilize a public facility, which the County makes available to any number of groups including his own in the past, in accordance with the laws and rules the County is allowed to set for fair use of said facility. When Sam Biscoe unilaterally and arbitrarily imposes a requirement on the Saxet promoter that Sam Biscoe is not legally allowed to impose in order to deny the Saxet promoter his right to pursue happiness in the form of sponsoring a gun show, Biscoe has violated the Saxet promoter's right to due process and frankly, Biscoe et. al. should be sitting in jail awaiting trial right now.

Equal protection: The government is not allowed to treat groups or individuals differently, nor to favor or disfavor groups or individuals based on political agreement or disagreement. Sam Biscoe politically disfavors a group that supports gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, as such group likely does not support Biscoe at the ballot box. Biscoe singled out this particular disfavored group and illegally enforced a requirement he is by law prohibited from enforcing in order to discriminate against said group and prevent them from exercising their rights to free speech and assembly, among other things. Biscoe does not impose illegal and onerous restrictions designed to restrict access to county facilities on other groups who wish to lease said facilities. He is therefore not treating the Saxet promoter equally.

[cb1000rider]

For those of us celebrating a prospective move of this gun show to Cedar Park:
1) Cedar Park already is hosting a competing gun show via another vendor. I dunno if they'll add another vendor for the same type of show.

2) I was at the Cedar Park Convention Center last night. It appears to now be posted 30.06 above the main entry doors. They simply took the signs from the prior Austin gun show and hung them up there. Again, likely prosecutable, but it's now posted for what looks like all events.

[JSThane]

I believe it would be equal protection, in that one could (hopefully) show the only difference between a gun show and another show is a politically charged issue with relevance to the Constitution. That is, Saxet was denied because of involvement with firearms, something Constitutionally protected, and the denial was therefore itself political and an effort to induce a chilling effect upon Second Amendment rights.

I thought they were denied because they refused to agree to the county's requirement for background checks on all gun sales. We can argue if background checks are constitutional but so far SCOTUS hasn't killed NICS.

I was not aware of this, and it does throw a little wrinkle into the case. However, I would like to know A) Does the county require background checks on all sales in the county period, or just on county property? If it's a county property thing, then it raises several issues, most notably being "Does the county have the authority to mandate an extraneous requirement on the exercise of enumerated rights on county-owned property?" This seems akin to requiring a license or background check to speak about politics on county property, or to pray, or a license not to be unreasonably searched. Kinda thin. If they demand it for ALL private sales in the county, I'd like to know how they plan to enforce it. B) Does the county have any statutory authority per state or federal law to demand this? Does an arbitrarily demanded background check, required nowhere else, constitute a "chilling effect" on the exercise of an enumerated right? Regardless of question A, this must be addressed; if the county does not have this authority, they need to be slapped down. If they somehow do, then there needs to be a preemption in state law that disallows abuse like this.

Bottom line: I seriously doubt whether the county has any authority to impose restrictions upon lawful commerce, carriage and commerce involving firearms under the Constitution, or authority to arbitrarily reject one exercise in lawful commerce and carriage specifically because it involves enumerated rights.

[bayouhazard]

I can't make it past the irony of a company with anti-gun policies complaining their lease wasn't renewed because the landlord is prejudiced against guns.

Sorry.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I can't make it past the irony of a company with anti-gun policies complaining their lease wasn't renewed because the landlord is prejudiced against guns.

Sorry.

That is pretty humorous.

[Scott Farkus]

The commissioners considered this again today and again denied Saxet the right to utilize its public facility. Regardless of what you think of the separate 30.06 issue, this is an outrageous abuse of power and totally unacceptable to anyone who cares a whit about the 2nd amendment, or the Constitution in general. Governments cannot pick and choose who uses public facilities based on political disagreement.

General Abbott, we're counting on you to do the right thing.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/loca ... -ex/ncw6r/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cb1000rider]

Technically,they didn't vote on extending the lease, which to me indicates that they are well aware of potential culpability here...

[bbobb]

the separate 30.06 issue,

Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas.