Search found 1 match

by srothstein
Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:26 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The city of Southmayd.
Replies: 51
Views: 19448

Re: The city of Southmayd.

mrdavidturner wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:44 am
I would hope to observe and learn a little more about why the contact was made in such a confrontational manner initially. I do understand that the rights of gun owners have been challenged and some city halls are placing signs in the manner as ours without regard to the AG opinion as well as the TSC and other court rulings on extraneous offices not being covered by 30.06/.07 signage.
Mr. Turner,

I cannot say how the initial contact was made but I can apologize for the group if you took it as confrontational. I am confident that it was not intended to be that way. I can remind you that it is much harder to convey tone in a letter than in person. While I tend to try to meet in person to talk about things, I will point out that the law does require the letter to start any legal process that can be binding. Some of us have had success by talking, but many of us have had little success when talking with governmental officials about anything. This has taught us to do things in the legal manner, by writing.

Many of us are also tired of being told we are suspected criminals simply because we decide to carry a weapon for protection. This may also made us much more likely to come across as confrontational when we don't intend to be, and made some of us more confrontational in fact.
I agree in part with what you are saying here, but please understand, if a person that is NOT an officer of the court is in possession of a weapon while in the court, the bailiff can readily identify that person as being in violation, therefore protecting all participants involved. Additionally, as stated by you, signs outside the actual court rooms and court offices are covered by statute. If you look closely at the photograph taken of the “bad city hall” posted on the forum, you will see through the double glass doors there is a service window. That window IS the office of the clerk collecting the fees and fines from the court. Also, through those glass doors, is the room where the judge holds his court. The building is small. It is not separated by long hallways, or multiple rooms divided into sections like the “good city hall”, I wish it were the case. Maybe one day, when the town grows, we can have a larger municipal building that can hold a more efficient body of offices serving the community with a separation allowing for avoidance of issues such as this. I have spoken to the judge, and he has invited you or someone from your group to come and see first hand the proximity of the court staff to the front entrance. Not as a challenge, not a debate, observation.
I understand what you are saying about the location of the clerk's office and the doorway. This would be a valid answer except for one principle contained in the Attorney General's opinion and the law in general. You cannot use the excuse of the office by the door to make the building off limits, which is the effect you are supporting. If there are offices in the building that are not the court's, people with a license must be allowed to go to those offices. I am not sure how to solve this problem for you since I have not been to your city, but I would first suggest rearranging offices so the non-court offices are by the door and then you can post the whole area around the court and it's offices. This may not be feasible, but the suggestion may help come up with other ideas that would work.

I would also suggest another answer is not posting the building at all. I say this because it solve all of the problems you have. First, it appears to me from the description given here that the postings you currently have are probably illegal. Removing the current posting would solve the potential problem of them being illegal.

Second, the postings you have only apply to people who are carrying under the authority of an LTC. They mean nothing to criminals, police officers, retired police officers, security guards, travelers, or anyone else who is carrying a weapon under any authority other than the LTC. Of this group, you should be concerned about the criminals obviously, but the signs will never apply to them.

Third, and most important, the signs are not necessary to ban weapons in the courtroom. Penal Code section 46.03 already makes weapons illegal in court rooms and court offices without written authorization by the court. The only exemption to that law is for officers of the court and emergency services personnel responding to an emergency. Thus, even without the signs, if the bailiff sees someone carrying a weapon, he may take the action necessary for protection.

As an alternative to not posting at all, you could post signs reminding people that it is a third degree felony to carry a weapon inside a courtroom or office used by the court. This would be legal and allow licensed carry inside the hallways leading to offices that are not court offices and help keep people from carrying inside the courtroom and clekr's office. It can be posted on the front doors to save money and effort of posting only the courtrooms.

Please feel free to contact me if I can help you come up with a solution to this problem that would be acceptable to all involved.

Return to “The city of Southmayd.”