Return to “Texas Carry Executive Director sued for filing signage complaint against Waller County”
After the case is fully over, including the AG suit, someone should serve an Open Records Request for all documents, audio/video records, emails, check requests/stubs, etc. related to this issue. Then give it to the media. Not me -- I do enough of these requests.mojo84 wrote:A lot of taxpayer money was wasted also. Glad it turned out like it did.
I've already written a bill to "fix" the "fines for signs" law. Sovereign immunity has nothing to do with either "fines for signs" or the Holcomb lawsuit. I was asking about a bill to deal with lawsuits like the one filed against Holcomb.Russell wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Do you know of a bill or plans to file one? I mean something other than Holcomb's comment.
Chas.
They never mentioned any bill numbers or anything in the call, just that they are being "worked on". Something about wanting to remove governmental immunity to allow individual lawsuits for posting illegal signage.
Do you know of a bill or plans to file one? I mean something other than Holcomb's comment.AJSully421 wrote:County tyrants about to get smacked by the TXLEG!Russell wrote:Just got off the conference call, it did not go in Terry's favor at all but they kind of expected that given the good old boy system there.
They are working on the appeals already, and he said that several legislators called him to express concern. The legislators are working on a bill to prevent this kind of retaliation from happening again.
Yes, but I'd have to look at them side-by-side to answer how they are different. The court issue being discussed is one and my treatment of 51% locations is another. Also, my current version would allow an LTC to carry in a 51% location, but not consume alcohol while in the bar. I know, some people will ask why when it's okay to drink in a restaurant so long as you don't get drunk. The answer is simple, I'm trying to get the bill passed.ELB wrote:Is the 2017 bill otherwise much different than HB 308 (as introduced, or as substituted in committee) in the last session?Charles L. Cotton wrote: .... The bill I drafted for the 2017 session allows LTCs to carry in courts, offices, etc., as long as they are not a party or witness in a case that is then being heard in that court. In larger counties like Harris and Dallas Counties, most folks have no reason to enter a court building unless they are involved in a case. In smaller counties, courts are often in multi-use buildings and this is where my bill will have the greatest impact in terms of courts and court buildings. Spectators will be able to carry in courtroom, but those typically are few in number.
Chas.
You are correct. The bill I drafted for the 2017 session allows LTCs to carry in courts, offices, etc., as long as they are not a party or witness in a case that is then being heard in that court. In larger counties like Harris and Dallas Counties, most folks have no reason to enter a court building unless they are involved in a case. In smaller counties, courts are often in multi-use buildings and this is where my bill will have the greatest impact in terms of courts and court buildings. Spectators will be able to carry in courtroom, but those typically are few in number.mojo84 wrote:If I recall correctly, Charles indicated his position is those directly involved in the court proceeding or related to those that are involved should not be allowed to carry in the courtrooms. That is off the top of my head and my recollection may be off some.Jusme wrote:Are courthouses, in their entirety, on the list of places that we plan on trying to remove from prohibited places?
All places that law enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms should apply to LTC holders. The only places they have to disarm are secured portions of jails and prisons. Courthouses, including court rooms, even off duty, police can carry either openly or concealed. TABC 51% locations, LEOs can carry. Professional, collegiate, and high school sporting events are ok for LEOs. All Texas school district premises, on duty or off are ok for police to carry. There is no sound reason to restrict those of us with LTC from carrying in these locations also. We have proven ourselves to be even more law abiding than LEOs, and it is only the prevailing attitudes of those who think only the police should be armed, that have kept us from having that freedom. Of course that still only applies to LTC holders, and doesn't touch on Constitutional Carry.
I can accept that restriction as I know court cases can get very heated and emotions can run very high.
All of this will be moot if we get serious about removing all off-limits areas. I'm tired of seeing this issue pushed to the back burner for over 10 years now. If we can't get it passed with all of the crap that zoos, libraries and other dishonest local officials are doing, then it will never pass.Jusme wrote:I agree Charles, Mr. Holcomb has definitely not made himself a friend of those of us who did things the right way to get legislation passed, and he has probably brought a lot of this on himself with his tactics, but, with that said, my concern is that if, Waller County gets a positive ruling regarding the posting of signs, it will set a precedence, that other left leaning g municipalities will follow to try and circumvent, not only the, intent of the legislation, but will create a huge log jam in lawsuits, and courtroom law that will cause the Legislature to have to address on a case by case basis for years to come. And may cause others to be hesitant to file legal complaints, out of fear of facing similar lawsuits.Charles L. Cotton wrote:The suit is utter garbage and suggesting that a person should not avail himself of a statutorily proscribed procedure to prevent continuing violation of Texas law by a governmental entity boggles the mind. BTW, I'm hardly a fan of Terry Holcomb.JALLEN wrote:This is the ordinary declarayory relief action, the form whenever there is a dispute over interpretation of a written instrument, etc.
While the complaint against Holcomb does not expressly name him as the complainant, there is no doubt that is who filed it. If it turns out otherwise, the case will be dismissed because there is no dispute, effectively, with Holcomb.
I'm not conversant with civil procedure in Texas enough to evaluate this procedurally, the form of pleading, etc.
A District Judge is not presdisposed to rule in anyone's favor, the county or otherwise. There are hundreds of cases where political subdivisions have lost cases against ordinary citizens when the facts and law supported that result. If a judge has reason to feel otherwise, (s)he must recuse him or herself. I have known of cases where, because of strong local feelings, or ties to the community of one party, the entire local bench recused themselves, and the matter was heard by a visiting judge. Judges have a more than ordinary interest in courtroom security, of course. That is likely more of an influence for an individual judge than anything else.
Eventually, courts will interpret these provisions. It will very likely be the Texas Supreme Court to have the final say.
It might have been cheaper for Holcomb to file a complaint in his county and leave it to others to file in their counties. "Don't want no trouble, don't start none."
Chas.
I'll admit my understanding of these issues is very limited, and I may be completely on the wrong track, and that's why I was hoping you could bring some clarity to this issue.
Any insight would be appreciated.
I realize you weren't a Texas lawyer, but a private citizen is hardly a proper party to this dec action. It should have been filed solely against the AG, if at all. Holcomb is not in a position to sue or otherwise enforce the statute at issue. Only the AG can bring suit.JALLEN wrote:Why should it boggle the mind? 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. I doubt this will be the critical factor in the eventual outcome.Charles L. Cotton wrote:The suit is utter garbage and suggesting that a person should not avail himself of a statutorily proscribed procedure to prevent continuing violation of Texas law by a governmental entity boggles the mind. BTW, I'm hardly a fan of Terry Holcomb.JALLEN wrote:This is the ordinary declarayory relief action, the form whenever there is a dispute over interpretation of a written instrument, etc.
While the complaint against Holcomb does not expressly name him as the complainant, there is no doubt that is who filed it. If it turns out otherwise, the case will be dismissed because there is no dispute, effectively, with Holcomb.
I'm not conversant with civil procedure in Texas enough to evaluate this procedurally, the form of pleading, etc.
A District Judge is not presdisposed to rule in anyone's favor, the county or otherwise. There are hundreds of cases where political subdivisions have lost cases against ordinary citizens when the facts and law supported that result. If a judge has reason to feel otherwise, (s)he must recuse him or herself. I have known of cases where, because of strong local feelings, or ties to the community of one party, the entire local bench recused themselves, and the matter was heard by a visiting judge. Judges have a more than ordinary interest in courtroom security, of course. That is likely more of an influence for an individual judge than anything else.
Eventually, courts will interpret these provisions. It will very likely be the Texas Supreme Court to have the final say.
It might have been cheaper for Holcomb to file a complaint in his county and leave it to others to file in their counties. "Don't want no trouble, don't start none."
Chas.
Declaratory relief is the accepted means for resolving these differences of interpretation, I believe. It seems the Commissioners have a novel and imaginative interpretation of these heretofore uninterpreted statutes. They believe they have a "loophole." Let the deciding process go forward. It's hardly "garbage." Maybe the AG will intervene if that seems appropriate. Maybe the AG will bring suit in Travis County, and seek a stay of this one. Maybe the AG will sit and watch what happens.
The suit is utter garbage and suggesting that a person should not avail himself of a statutorily proscribed procedure to prevent continuing violation of Texas law by a governmental entity boggles the mind. BTW, I'm hardly a fan of Terry Holcomb.JALLEN wrote:This is the ordinary declarayory relief action, the form whenever there is a dispute over interpretation of a written instrument, etc.
While the complaint against Holcomb does not expressly name him as the complainant, there is no doubt that is who filed it. If it turns out otherwise, the case will be dismissed because there is no dispute, effectively, with Holcomb.
I'm not conversant with civil procedure in Texas enough to evaluate this procedurally, the form of pleading, etc.
A District Judge is not presdisposed to rule in anyone's favor, the county or otherwise. There are hundreds of cases where political subdivisions have lost cases against ordinary citizens when the facts and law supported that result. If a judge has reason to feel otherwise, (s)he must recuse him or herself. I have known of cases where, because of strong local feelings, or ties to the community of one party, the entire local bench recused themselves, and the matter was heard by a visiting judge. Judges have a more than ordinary interest in courtroom security, of course. That is likely more of an influence for an individual judge than anything else.
Eventually, courts will interpret these provisions. It will very likely be the Texas Supreme Court to have the final say.
It might have been cheaper for Holcomb to file a complaint in his county and leave it to others to file in their counties. "Don't want no trouble, don't start none."
