RIP - Fines for Signs

[ScottDLS]

After over a year of GC 411.209 "fines for signs" it looks like it's effectively been useless. To my knowledge no government entity has been fined yet. A couple of cities have taken down unenforceable signs, but most haven't. The State Fair started allowing concealed carry before the law, but this year unilaterally banned open carry without challenge. They cited KP-108 which could just as easily be applied to concealed carry if you follow the logic (or lack thereof).

KP-108 has effectively nullified GC 411.209 for almost all the locations where the law would have made a difference. All the entity controlling the government property has to do is physically prevent you from entering while carrying and there is nothing you can do about it. And KP-108 says they have the right under the law to enforce this "civil trespass" provision. The consolation that you are not breaking a criminal law is really of no consequence as you weren't prior to GC 411.209...

Even the few cases that the AG has taken up, seem to be the ones that are the LEAST clear. I agree that a court being in a multi-purpose building shouldn't prohibit the whole building, but I see a LOT more support for that prohibition than I do for banning open carry at Fair Park.

The Dallas Zoo is an Amusement Park according to AG Paxton, but he can't find support in the law for fining the government for letting a lessee post public property?

Cities continue to post signs on public streets during festivals and threaten to arrest LTC's for carrying. They ignore the definition of "premises" in 46.035 by allowing non-structure public property and streets to be posted with 51% signs. This is of course the "bluff" that "fines for signs" was supposed to address...(i.e. cities posting unenforceable signs)...and we should all note that no one has been arrested yet.

The BEST legislation for LTC in 2015 was the reduction of 30.06 penalty to a class C misdemeanor in most cases. Not because you can break the law and get a lighter penalty, but because you can NOT BREAK THE LAW and have very little chance of being unjustly prosecuted or found guilty...and even if you are WRONGLY found guilty you face a minimal penalty.

"Fines for signs" was a nice idea, but it underestimated the stubbornness of the anti-gun establishment...they just ignore the law and the effort required to enforce it and the strong possibility of it being nullified by a lawless judge render it useless.

[rotor]

ScottDLS, your skill at bringing these points to light is excellent. My Senator is Craig Estes. Very influential in the 2nd amendment issues. Would you write him an excellent letter pointing out these deficiencies or write one and pm to me and I will forward to him. Your skill is much greater than mine.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I disagree on almost all points. The vast majority of unenforceable signs came down, not just a few as you claim. Yes, CP-108 is a problem, but only for locations were private persons or entities control government property. This is easily fixed as is the problem with so-called "educational institutions" and "amusement parks" on governmental property like zoos and libraries.

Rotor, you are correct about Sen. Estes. He's one of the strongest voices for Texas gun owners and a true champion of the Second Amendment. However, when a law need tweaking, you first go to the primary sponsor in the House or Senate, whichever version of the bill passed. This would be Sen. Donna Campbell (SB273), another strong voice for gun owners.

Fines-for-signs is not dead or even on its death bed. It has a minor cold that can be fixed.

Chas.

[doncb]

After over a year of GC 411.209 "fines for signs" it looks like it's effectively been useless.

It pretty much died with a whimper. All the cities had to do was just wait it out and they knew interest would be lost and it would just go away. This just isn't important to the AG. I wouldn't look for anything changing.

[Lynyrd]

I disagree on almost all points. The vast majority of unenforceable signs came down, not just a few as you claim. Yes, CP-108 is a problem, but only for locations were private persons or entities control government property. This is easily fixed as is the problem with so-called "educational institutions" and "amusement parks" on governmental property like zoos and libraries.

Rotor, you are correct about Sen. Estes. He's one of the strongest voices for Texas gun owners and a true champion of the Second Amendment. However, when a law need tweaking, you first go to the primary sponsor in the House or Senate, whichever version of the bill passed. This would be Sen. Donna Campbell (SB273), another strong voice for gun owners.

Fines-for-signs is not dead or even on its death bed. It has a minor cold that can be fixed.

Chas.

I am glad you are optimistic sir. You have encouraged me as to the future. Now lets hope Washington leaves us alone.

[RoyGBiv]

Just because nobody has been fined doesn't mean that signs haven't come down in response to the law. Change is hard for people. Changing government is harder still.

So far, I'm encouraged.
Tweaks? Some would be helpful.

Patience grasshopper.

[G.A. Heath]

I agree with Charles 100% on this, also keep in mind that we are dealing with a process that must go through the courts. Currently more than one case is proceeding forward against local government bodies. As this is an issue that is likely to be appealed, and thereby setting case law the AG's office is probably being very careful in choosing which case will proceed and when. Ken Paxton is a friend to gun owners, and I am quite certain he has a plan to build good solid case law that will benefit us for quite some time into the future.

Any time you have a piece of legislation someone will find a flaw or loophole to exploit, so you have to go back and fix it or allow it to continue to be exploited. I suspect that the NRA, TSRA, and Charles Cotton intend to fix the problems that have surfaced, and maybe even expand the law so that it becomes more effective (such as allowing a private action).

[AJSully421]

My problem is the amount of time it takes to clear up VERY simple issues.

I filed a complaint against the City of Benbrook for their signs on the PD and City Hall. They claim that because there is a court clerk in the City Hall, and that bonds are paid to the gal behind the window at the PD, that both of those entire buildings are "court offices", including hallways, restrooms, waiting areas, all of it.

We know darn good and well that this is not correct. I filed a complaint in early May, they responded by late May... and it is late October, and as of Thursday of last week, the signs are still up.

Same thing with the Fort Worth Zoo. There was a complaint filed a long time ago, but nothing has been resolved yet.

So, these cities get to violate both my God-given rights, and my state granted "privilege" to carry a handgun in public for months and months, simply because government bureaucracy down in Austin. No matter what you think, that is not right.

We should tweak the law to where once a formal complaint is made to the OAG, then the municipality gets a letter telling them to remove or cover the sign during the review process, and will be subject to the penalty of the "official oppression" statute if they don't. Then they can take months and months to make a final determination and can then uncover or repost the sign if they are found to be compliant, or permanently remove it if they are not. How hard is that?

[SewTexas]

I disagree on almost all points. The vast majority of unenforceable signs came down, not just a few as you claim. Yes, CP-108 is a problem, but only for locations were private persons or entities control government property. This is easily fixed as is the problem with so-called "educational institutions" and "amusement parks" on governmental property like zoos and libraries.

Rotor, you are correct about Sen. Estes. He's one of the strongest voices for Texas gun owners and a true champion of the Second Amendment. However, when a law need tweaking, you first go to the primary sponsor in the House or Senate, whichever version of the bill passed. This would be Sen. Donna Campbell (SB273), another strong voice for gun owners.

Fines-for-signs is not dead or even on its death bed. It has a minor cold that can be fixed.

Chas.

she's been a fairly strong voice for gun owners, yes. But right now she's got homeschoolers out for her throat, some are starting to question her conservatism.

[rotor]

One thing you are not seeing is the threat of sending an AG letter. It got 30.06/07 signs removed from our local gunshow. Then what happens, ND by one of the displayers before the show opened. 12 gauge ND. Not caused by a LTC holder. Three people to the hospital, not serious though.

[ScottDLS]

One thing you are not seeing is the threat of sending an AG letter. It got 30.06/07 signs removed from our local gunshow. Then what happens, ND by one of the displayers before the show opened. 12 gauge ND. Not caused by a LTC holder. Three people to the hospital, not serious though.

I heard the Fort Worth Gun Show started posting again after KP-108 came out. Unless they have metal detectors or frisk you before going into public venues, I just ignore the signs and CC. That's why I feel that GC 411.209 has been a bust. The intent was to remove the intimidation by public entities, but now they've just given them an out, not to mention being very slow in addressing those where they did receive complaints. So far all I've heard is Austin City hall and one county building being enforced by AG.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I disagree on almost all points. The vast majority of unenforceable signs came down, not just a few as you claim. Yes, CP-108 is a problem, but only for locations were private persons or entities control government property. This is easily fixed as is the problem with so-called "educational institutions" and "amusement parks" on governmental property like zoos and libraries.

Rotor, you are correct about Sen. Estes. He's one of the strongest voices for Texas gun owners and a true champion of the Second Amendment. However, when a law need tweaking, you first go to the primary sponsor in the House or Senate, whichever version of the bill passed. This would be Sen. Donna Campbell (SB273), another strong voice for gun owners.

Fines-for-signs is not dead or even on its death bed. It has a minor cold that can be fixed.

Chas.

she's been a fairly strong voice for gun owners, yes. But right now she's got homeschoolers out for her throat, some are starting to question her conservatism.

No, she hasn't been a "fairly strong voice for gun owners." She's been rock solid and worked as hard for us as anyone. I don't know anything about the homeschool issue and Sen. Campbell, but they won't cost her election nor block any of her gun bills. (I'm a strong supporter of homeschooling.)

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . We should tweak the law to where once a formal complaint is made to the OAG, then the municipality gets a letter telling them to remove or cover the sign during the review process, and will be subject to the penalty of the "official oppression" statute if they don't. Then they can take months and months to make a final determination and can then uncover or repost the sign if they are found to be compliant, or permanently remove it if they are not. How hard is that?

Not hard at all. In fact, why don't you jump in and do that one yourself next session? It's so easy, you don't need experience or influence.

Chas.

[SewTexas]

I disagree on almost all points. The vast majority of unenforceable signs came down, not just a few as you claim. Yes, CP-108 is a problem, but only for locations were private persons or entities control government property. This is easily fixed as is the problem with so-called "educational institutions" and "amusement parks" on governmental property like zoos and libraries.

Rotor, you are correct about Sen. Estes. He's one of the strongest voices for Texas gun owners and a true champion of the Second Amendment. However, when a law need tweaking, you first go to the primary sponsor in the House or Senate, whichever version of the bill passed. This would be Sen. Donna Campbell (SB273), another strong voice for gun owners.

Fines-for-signs is not dead or even on its death bed. It has a minor cold that can be fixed.

Chas.

she's been a fairly strong voice for gun owners, yes. But right now she's got homeschoolers out for her throat, some are starting to question her conservatism.

No, she hasn't been a "fairly strong voice for gun owners." She's been rock solid and worked as hard for us as anyone. I don't know anything about the homeschool issue and Sen. Campbell, but they won't cost her election nor block any of her gun bills. (I'm a strong supporter of homeschooling.)

Chas.

Charles, I'm sorry if my use of the word "fairly" irritated you. I've been one of the biggest proponent Dr Donna has had.
Right now, however, she's on the wrong side of a school choice bill she's working on and she's got homeschoolers all over the state angry. And yes, they can cost her the election if they choose to, I've seen it happen.
Oh, and most homeschoolers, are pro-2nd.

[AJSully421]

. . . We should tweak the law to where once a formal complaint is made to the OAG, then the municipality gets a letter telling them to remove or cover the sign during the review process, and will be subject to the penalty of the "official oppression" statute if they don't. Then they can take months and months to make a final determination and can then uncover or repost the sign if they are found to be compliant, or permanently remove it if they are not. How hard is that?

Not hard at all. In fact, why don't you jump in and do that one yourself next session? It's so easy, you don't need experience or influence.


Chas.

Ok, touched a nerve...

I meant how hard is it to not violate rights and take unlawful signs down while under contention... not how hard is it to get a law changed.

Sorry that I was not clear on that.