TexasCHLforum.com

I must say I'm disappointed in TSRA's response. The answer is not to give in and seek a new venue, the answer is to sue Sam Biscoe for violation of the law.

If this stands, I have no doubt Bexar County/San Antonio will try something similar.

I don't like 30.06 on public buildings any more than the next guy, but it's a separate issue. If Sam Biscoe gets away with this today, tomorrow he's going to decide that we "really oughta" not let gun stores sell those assault rifles in the county. Then when he gets away with that, he'll decide that we "really oughta" not allow more than 7 round clips in the county. And then Bexar county will take notice, and Harris, and so on until we wake up one day and realize we're New York.

We were very close to the Legislature putting some teeth into the 30.06 law last session. Maybe Abbott will follow through with that next year.

Although I do wonder why Abbott suddenly got so quiet on this gun show thing, and I'm none too happy about that, either.

The commissioners considered this again today and again denied Saxet the right to utilize its public facility. Regardless of what you think of the separate 30.06 issue, this is an outrageous abuse of power and totally unacceptable to anyone who cares a whit about the 2nd amendment, or the Constitution in general. Governments cannot pick and choose who uses public facilities based on political disagreement.

General Abbott, we're counting on you to do the right thing.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/loca ... -ex/ncw6r/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:Due process. Equal protection. Freedom of speech. Take your pick.

Freedom of speech? Its not being limited criminally.

Due process/ equal protection-how? Its not a protected class being ingfringed upon in violation of Civil Rights legislation. Can someone help me out here?

EDIT: Again not trying to be hostile here, just looking for what would be an actual actionable ground thats worked before.

Freedom of speech: Gun shows are more than commercial ventures. They are a gathering of like-minded individuals visibly exercising, promoting and celebrating the 2nd Amendment. Sam Biscoe is in all likelihood politically hostile to gun rights and would prefer to suppress any speech that promotes them; ergo, his illegal attempt to eliminate gun shows in Travis County is a form of suppression of the free speech rights of the organizer and attendees. A similar (and perhaps better) argument can be made with respect to freedom of assembly, also supposedly protected by the First Amendment.

Due Process: The Saxet promoter has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which the government cannot deny without due process of law. One means by which he pursues happiness is through promotion of the Saxet gun show. He has chosen to utilize a public facility, which the County makes available to any number of groups including his own in the past, in accordance with the laws and rules the County is allowed to set for fair use of said facility. When Sam Biscoe unilaterally and arbitrarily imposes a requirement on the Saxet promoter that Sam Biscoe is not legally allowed to impose in order to deny the Saxet promoter his right to pursue happiness in the form of sponsoring a gun show, Biscoe has violated the Saxet promoter's right to due process and frankly, Biscoe et. al. should be sitting in jail awaiting trial right now.

Equal protection: The government is not allowed to treat groups or individuals differently, nor to favor or disfavor groups or individuals based on political agreement or disagreement. Sam Biscoe politically disfavors a group that supports gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, as such group likely does not support Biscoe at the ballot box. Biscoe singled out this particular disfavored group and illegally enforced a requirement he is by law prohibited from enforcing in order to discriminate against said group and prevent them from exercising their rights to free speech and assembly, among other things. Biscoe does not impose illegal and onerous restrictions designed to restrict access to county facilities on other groups who wish to lease said facilities. He is therefore not treating the Saxet promoter equally.

Due process. Equal protection. Freedom of speech. Take your pick.

30.06 is a separate issue.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I disagree. the County shouldn't be in the business of leasing space in the first place.

That may well be true, but they do lease the space to any number of groups. The Rodeo, the ROT rally, horse shows, jewelry/bead shows, etc. Once they open it up to one, they have to open it up for all.

The 30.06 issue is an issue, but completely separate from this. Please do not conflate the two.

Similarly, taking the position that Saxet can or should move to Williamson county misses the point. This isn't a gun control issue, it's a civil rights issue. The government cannot pick and choose who it allows to use public facilities based on a political disagreement. That is the essence of the first amendment.

Can you imagine the uproar if the Travis County Commissioners refused to allow, for example, a promoter to rent the Expo Center or a county park for a Gay Pride Festival? Or if they told the promoter they would agree to the Festival but only if he would prohibit men from kissing each other on county property? Because THAT'S the essence of what Travis County has done. They imposed a requirement on Saxet that the county by state law has no power to enforce, in order to exclude a politically disfavored group from utilizing a public facility. This is rank discrimination, and it is arguably more dangerous as a threat to civil rights than a threat to gun rights. No local government would ever dare do this to a liberal sacred cow, because the ACLU would have them in court by the end of the day.

I hope someone is preparing that lawsuit on behalf of Saxet, as it appear Abbott has suddenly gone silent on the issue. What a difference an election year makes, huh?