As much as I would love to see that, I'm not sure this would actually take care of the problem? What I read is that upon the AG determining that an action is warranted, that the entity then has 15 days to remove the sign without penalty, unless they've been previously found in violation by the court. So doesn't that mean that they can still post away, and if/when caught will simply be told that they have 15 days to comply with THAT violation? And I'm not seeing anything then which stops them from starting again the day after they took any sign down as they have to have a previous court finding, not an AG finding.Keith B wrote:Hopefully SB 273 will take care of that http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Search/Doc ... &DocType=B" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;ELB wrote:Interesting. Although there is not yet a mechanism in the statutes for taking action against governmental entities for posting (or allowing to be posted) 30.06 signs, it does seem like there ought to be a cause of action if a peace officer enforces an illegally created no-go zone against CHL carriers by either preventing entry or arresting (or detaining, or ejecting etc etc). I really don't see how at this stage of the CHL game that law enforcement could claim that such enforcement was in good faith or that the law was not clear.Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Houston Police Dept. made it clear that its officers working extra jobs at guns shows held on city property would not enforce 30.06 signs. They correctly acknowledged that the law did not allow 30.06 signs to be enforced on city property. The gun shows then started using Harris County Deputy Sheriffs to handle security.
Chas.
Better than current law, I think, but it seems that it will still allow for abuse.