I think it would be better if the law were amended to allow persons prevented from entry to sue either the city or the event holders, or both. Presently, having to write the AG and provide all evidence of these actions, then wait for someone in the AG's office to actually do something is laughable. It might work for things like court houses, and other publicly owned property, but for events like this and others, it just doesn't work. By the time the AG actually gets around to doing something about it, the event is a distant memory.Soccerdad1995 wrote:I did not know that. Thanks for educating me!ScottDLS wrote:One of the problems with the "Fines for Signs" is that it is NOT a criminal act to bar LTC from public property, only a civil matter and you have to depend on the AG to sue, unless you feel you can come up with your own private cause of action and fund the suit. FLORIDA is leading Texas in this respect, as they did with shall issue, 9 years before we got it.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Great work.
I also must say that it is a shame we need to go to these lengths. It is illegal to bar entry to LTC holders, so we should be able to just call 911 and have the local LEO come out to ensure that this continuing criminal act is stopped. This is no different than someone locking me out of my home and not allowing me to enter. It is a crime. Law Enforcement should be preventing this crime from occurring.
And I would love to get something passed that would make it a criminal act to bar entry to a publicly owned location to anyone who has a legal right to be there (including LTC holders who are carrying a weapon). Exceptions could be made for clearing places in the event of protests, etc. I'm thinking a $1,000 fine and/or 30 days in jail might be a good disincentive.
Being able to sue the cities and event holders in small claims/JP court for say, 100-150 dollars plus filing fees, would really send a message. Imagine let's say the Houston Rodeo. How many thousands of permit holders went? If 10% of them did this, things would change fast. I think their attorneys would advise them to settle, the first year, and then if they didn't want it to happen again, change their policy.