Texas Carry Executive Director sued for filing signage complaint against Waller County

[mojo84]

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

Sorry you didn't get the joke.

[JALLEN]

I realize you weren't a Texas lawyer, but a private citizen is hardly a proper party to this dec action. It should have been filed solely against the AG, if at all. Holcomb is not in a position to sue or otherwise enforce the statute at issue. Only the AG can bring suit.

Yes, this lawsuit is garbage and it was filed solely to chill citizens from following the statutorily required procedures. Otherwise, it would have been filed against the AG in response to his position on the issue.

Chas.

Can someone sue the AG before the AG has done anything, other than publish an opinion?

The private party had at least taken official action which generated the dispute.

The ruling of a trial court is hardly precedential, and will certainly be appealed.

BTW, I filed a complaint with the AG with respect to the county here, following correct procedure. It is pending.

Would your opinion about the government entity suing the private citizen that followed the law be different if the entity that you complained about sued you for filing the complaint?

Nope. For one thing, the signs I dealt with were 30.06 signs, not the "loophole" Waller Co. thinks they have discovered.

I, and the companies I was responsible for, were sued hundreds of times, to no ill effect, and some occasional amusement, although not without some cost.

I wouldn't look forward to it, exactly, but when you go into battle, it is never without some cost. Look at all the aggravation Charles endures in his battles. These are disputed issues, being fought over and will continue to be fought over for a long, long time.

Harry Truman taught, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

[bblhd672]

Liberals and anti-Constitutionalists (as if there's a difference) are taking the battle against firearms to every level possible.

A government suing a private individual for exercising his lawful rights is a new front on the war. This should serve as notice to all freedom loving people that the opposition will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

[Abraham]

I've read a ton of detail per this thread to the point, for me at least, I'm confused. (not that difficult to confuse me as I'm rather long in the tooth and bent...)

With that said: Am I correct in thinking that 'yes', we have an attempt to chill proper, that's is to say, lawful complaining by a governmental entity?

[G.A. Heath]

This is about much more than firearms. This is about who is in charge and who can involve themeselves. What happens when a citizen protests a hike in property taxes, or the newspaper publishes an article on corruption, or someone chooses to write a facebook post about a schoolboard super intendant keeping his job after pleading guilty to a DWI while driving a school van? Sadly this legitimizes the efforts of certain groups to file these complaints in place of the local individual as it provides the local person an added level of protection from actions like this.

[Papa_Tiger]

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?

[Jusme]

I've read a ton of detail per this thread to the point, for me at least, I'm confused. (not that difficult to confuse me as I'm rather long in the tooth and bent...)

With that said: Am I correct in thinking that 'yes', we have an attempt to chill proper, that's is to say, lawful complaining by a governmental entity?

You are correct, that is absolutely the aim of Waller County, but I also believe that they are attempting to get a ruling on the legality of their signage, before they have to face a lawsuit from the AG.

They are hoping that if they get a favorable ruling by claiming that someone falsely filed a complaint, then they will have more legal ground to stand on in any upcoming battles with the AG. This not only is a 2A issue but a 1A one. There is no harm or damage caused to the county from filing a complaint, if it is proven to be false, or in error. The only potential loss they could suffer would be if they are found to be in violation and are fined after a lawsuit. There is no compensatory claim that they have, so this is strictly a pre-emptive move on their part to get a judge to agree with them on their signage. They just used Mr. Holcomb's complaint as a way to open up the can of worms.

I hope that this is shown to be the sham that it is, but I am concerned that this will set into motion, other Counties/Cities filing similar suits against those exercising their First and Second Amendment rights.

[mojo84]

I realize you weren't a Texas lawyer, but a private citizen is hardly a proper party to this dec action. It should have been filed solely against the AG, if at all. Holcomb is not in a position to sue or otherwise enforce the statute at issue. Only the AG can bring suit.

Yes, this lawsuit is garbage and it was filed solely to chill citizens from following the statutorily required procedures. Otherwise, it would have been filed against the AG in response to his position on the issue.

Chas.

Can someone sue the AG before the AG has done anything, other than publish an opinion?

The private party had at least taken official action which generated the dispute.

The ruling of a trial court is hardly precedential, and will certainly be appealed.

BTW, I filed a complaint with the AG with respect to the county here, following correct procedure. It is pending.

Would your opinion about the government entity suing the private citizen that followed the law be different if the entity that you complained about sued you for filing the complaint?

Nope. For one thing, the signs I dealt with were 30.06 signs, not the "loophole" Waller Co. thinks they have discovered.

I, and the companies I was responsible for, were sued hundreds of times, to no ill effect, and some occasional amusement, although not without some cost.

I wouldn't look forward to it, exactly, but when you go into battle, it is never without some cost. Look at all the aggravation Charles endures in his battles. These are disputed issues, being fought over and will continue to be fought over for a long, long time.

Harry Truman taught, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I intend this with all due respect. Your response comes across as someone with that makes or made their money from legal fees and lawsuits and not someone that has to write the checks for the legal fees. It's been my experience, the two perspectives rarely see eye to eye when it comes to confidence and trust in our legal system.

A government entity that is trying to exploit a "loophole" in order to circumvent a law and then suing a private citizen that is following the law is egregious and is something only a government employee or an attorney could support.

Robbing a bank and then trying to say it is just a low doc express loan or withdrawal is still robbery. A government entity denying a LTC entry into a premises that is not a courtroom or court related office is still against the law regardless what tortured interpretation one uses to try and justify it.

The hearing and floor discussion/debate made it very clear what the legislators intended. Waller County, Travis and other counties are just thumbing their noses at the citizens and legislators.

[JALLEN]

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?

In this case, they are not "ignoring" the law. The Waller County folk believe they have found a loophole that allows them to do what they are doing. The statutes have yet to be judicially interpreted so that's the argument. We believe we have what the Lege intended and said. They think otherwise.

Some eccentrics believe the duly elected officials of each county ought to be able to set the rules and policies for the folks who elected them. To a certain extent that is true, but the Lege has spoken. We know what they said. As Aunt Gracie might say, "I think you misunderstood what I heard."

We don't know, at least I don't, what role the AG has already played in Waller County. What did they do with the complaint? Was the complaint actually given to the AG, or merely sent to the Waller Co, judge? The AG might file suit itself, and order this suit stayed pending the outcome. They might intervene in this suit.

One thing you can't count on in litigation is for your opponent to follow the strategy you think he ought to. You have to make them do things right. Maybe the defendant lawyer will demur or whatever the similar procedure here in Texas is, the demurrer will be sustained and Waller County tossed out on their ears.

[JALLEN]

I intend this with all due respect. Your response comes across as someone with that makes or made their money from legal fees and lawsuits and not someone that has to write the checks for the legal fees. It's been my experience, the two perspectives rarely see eye to eye when it comes to confidence and trust in our legal system.

Yes and no.

I have earned fees from representing parties in litigation. I have also paid very considerable sums to lawyers. When I was counsel at one of the very large title insurers, I spent $100,00-$250,000 per month on attorneys in various matters, and our investment company and affiliates were sued constantly. We spent many hundreds of thousands on that. A more accurate view is that I don't view litigation as a threat so much, especially when I am confident I am in the right. It's a bother at most.

This case doesn't claim the defendant did anything wrong, merely that there is a difference of interpretation and the court should say which is correct, if either.

A government entity that is trying to exploit a "loophole" in order to circumvent a law and then suing a private citizen that is following the law is egregious and is something only a government employee or an attorney could support.

Robbing a bank and then trying to say it is just a low doc express loan or withdrawal is still robbery. A government entity denying a LTC entry into a premises that is not a courtroom or court related office is still against the law regardless what tortured interpretation one uses to try and justify it.

The hearing and floor discussion/debate made it very clear what the legislators intended. Waller County, Travis and other counties are just thumbing their noses at the citizens and legislators.

Your example is as absurd as your conclusion that it is against the law regardless of the "tortured interpretation." That assumes the very thing in issue.

It is true that to a great extent, these counties are acting like we're trying to give a cat a bath. They don't want it. Fine. Let them make their arguments, do their dances, etc.

Legislation is seldom very clear, especially in controversial issues. By the time the compromises are all adjusted, and opponents succeed in inserting muddled language to cover doubtful situations, the result is often tortured and complex. There may be a statute somewhere that is "very clear" as to its meaning and intent. I'd enjoy seeing one some day. Applying such a statute to complicated, unanticipated facts can be less so.

A "very clear" expression of intent would be, "A person who has a valid license to carry a firearmmay do so in any government office, building of facility other than a courtroom where court sessions are being held and a jail or prison." That would be very desirable but it wouldn't have enough votes to pass, apparently. We would still have PC40.03 et seq to argue about.

[mojo84]

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".

[JALLEN]

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

[rotor]

Rather than arguing among each other, I will again ask "Is there no action that can be taken against the people filing these malicious lawsuits or are they immune to any action?"

[bblhd672]

Texas Constitution, Art. 1 Sec. 27.
RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for
their common good; and apply to those invested with the powers of government
for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

Seems to me that Waller County is attempting to infringe upon a citizen's Texas Constitutional rights.
A chilling precedent if allowed to proceed.

[JALLEN]

Rather than arguing among each other, I will again ask "Is there no action that can be taken against the people filing these malicious lawsuits or are they immune to any action?"

I doubt very seriously that this declaratory relief action would ever be considered malicious.