Search found 2 matches

by Jusme
Thu May 19, 2016 11:24 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: AG opinion KP-0089
Replies: 17
Views: 3481

Re: AG opinion KP-0089

AJSully421 wrote:I had occasion to talk to so someone on the AG's 30.06 complaint team and asked them why it took so long to get this stuff going. He said that they had to build this thing from the ground up. All that the legislature said was that the AG's office was going to handle these complaints, but implementing and enacting this brand new delegated authority was a time-consuming matter.

He said that they had to have meeting after meeting about how to best follow the law and get results. They had to figure out what their legal authority was, and actually had to stop down and wait a couple of times while the AG's opinions on a couple of issues where that decision would apply to a certain situation. Then they had to decide how to properly apply that authority, create a process map, make assignments for the staff, and then, and only then, could they start handling complaints.

He also said that they have actually traveled to several places in the state to look at the buildings / rooms in question and how they are laid out to consult with the leaders of these towns and counties about how to accomplish keeping guns out of courtrooms and clerk's offices while allowing the rest of the building to be open for legal carry. He said that there has only been one so far that was being militant (He wouldn't tell me which one), and that the rest were sincerely concerned about striking a good balance between making sure that both they and us LTCers are following the law. In many cases, they have advised the location to post a sign such as "You are entering a courtroom / clerk's office and carry is prohibited here under TXPC 46.03(a)(3)."

There was much more to it than a meeting on September 1st where a few folks on the AG's staff were pointed at and told "You are now the 30.06 complaint team, now go get to work."

It was a great conversation.

That's why I haven't been too critical of the AG's office on this. They already have a lot on their plate, and this was new territory, that couldn't have a blanket solution for all facilities and situations. I spoke with Senator Brian Birdwell a few months ago, and we were discussing Campus Carry, and he was explaining that the reason they left a lot of the decision making to the individual universities is because each campus is unique, and a blanket law would not work for them all.

So too when dealing with different government facilities, they first have to notify them that a complaint has been filed, then await a response, then verify that signs are indeed posted, and as you describe possibly have to travel there to view the facilities, and then get together to decide what, if any violation there may be. I have been encouraged by the decisions and opinions so far, and I think in time it will all be worked out.
by Jusme
Thu May 19, 2016 9:32 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: AG opinion KP-0089
Replies: 17
Views: 3481

Re: AG opinion KP-0089

ScottDLS wrote:
MeMelYup wrote:Reading KP-0089, a person can conclude that no state agency can make a requirement effecting firearms unless it is stipulated in 46.03 or 46.035. This includes agencies like family services, Texas BATFE, etc.
Texas has a Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives? :???:

I think he meant TABC :tiphat:

Return to “AG opinion KP-0089”