TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:As for 3) Does it include Mosques?

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Even if the penalty is reduced it is still effective. 1. There is a cost to breaking the law. 2. If a penalty is being assessed, clearly the sign is not enforceable. No need to be intimidated. Walk right past.

I understand all of that. I am asking if the amount of the penalty will impede the passing of the legislation. Do you have an answer for the question I asked asked Charles?

No I don't. My point is that even if the penalty is reduced in order to get the statute passed, the law is still effective. Even $500/day would garner attention in a negative way.

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Even if the penalty is reduced it is still effective. 1. There is a cost to breaking the law. 2. If a penalty is being assessed, clearly the sign is not enforceable. No need to be intimidated. Walk right past.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

SewTexas wrote:

Dori wrote:

booze97 wrote:1. Replace Joe Straus with a pro-gun conservative as Speaker of the House. Everything else has a 1000x better chance of happening after that.

A nice dream but is there even a chance of Straus getting the D or F grade he really deserves from gun groups?

that wouldn't make any difference....he's from north San Antonio, he's had an opponent the last two primaries, he has the money his opponent doesn't, he has the name recognition his opponent doesn't, that's where the problems lie.

when the reps in the House decide to get some guts and stop electing him as Speaker, that's when he'll retire, until then we're all stuck with him.

RoyGBiv wrote:As much as #5 is an annoyance, I'm surprised it's getting so many votes.
If I know a sign is unenforceable, I ignore it.

Would I like to see a penalty? Certainly.
Do I give it that much priority? No. I'd put it near the bottom of my list.

Getting 3218 passed obviates this problem.

5. Create a substantial civil penalty for governmental agencies and political subdivisions that post unenforceable 30.06 signs [HB508 in 2013];