TexasCHLforum.com

dawgfishboy wrote:Is providing a secure place to lock it up while in the building too much to ask (or a bad idea)? Some of us prefer to ride mass transit vs driving downtown when summonsed.

A nice idea, but probably a nonstarter for the same reason airports no longer have lockers. It's place to leave a bomb.

JALLEN wrote: By filing such a number of complaints, Holcomb, who isn't a resident of any of these counties but possibly one, almost takes on the hue of an officious intermeddler.

Officious intermeddler? Like Martin Luther King? MLK was a civil rights activist This guy is, too.

Complain, if you will, that the March across the Edmond Pettus bridge was intermeddling, but most of us won't buy it.

mojo84 wrote:

KLB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I'm just curious how much you internet lawyers charge per hour.

Sorry you didn't get the joke.

I liked the joke, but I wasn't wearing my glasses. I thought the emoji I picked was smiling.

[quote="Charles L. Cotton"](The suit) should have been filed solely against the AG, if at all. /quote]

Yes, an important point. Suing Holcomb instead of the AG is an attempt to chill the filing of such complaints ts, an exanple of government as thug.

mojo84 wrote:I'm just curious how much you internet lawyers charge per hour.

G.A. Heath wrote:My understanding is that Waller County posted signs citing 46.03 and 46.035 not 30.06 or signs referring to a chl. If that is the case those signs might pass legal muster for avoiding a fine.

You're pointing out a flaw in 411.209 that has concerned me all along.

mr1337 wrote:Waller Co. shouldn't even have standing to sue the individual.

As the term is ordinarily understood, Waller County has standing, but that begs the question whether this is the appropriate forum to vindicate its grievances. See my past above about whether the 411.209 procedures should be construed to be exclusive.

mr1337 wrote:I hope this gets thrown out by a judge before the individual has to put any time or money into his defense.

Me, too.

Another issue is whether the Government Code 411.209, detailed procedures for resolving the legitimacy of no-gun signs in public facilities were intended by the legislature to be exclusive. Again, not my area, but if I were handling this case, I would look at that. Note that 411.209 provides for venue in Travis County. Waller County has done an end run around that. That's troubling and perhaps a reason to say the statutory procedures are exclusive.

Without a doubt the defendant could end up owing money to Waller County. The prayer for relief asks for reasonable attorneys fees. That could be tens of thousands of dollars.

Not my area, but perhaps Texas Carry will be able to get the suit dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... htm#27.010