Is Brazos County pulling a fast one?

[mr1337]

I’ve been following a case with the Brazos County courthouse which 19 years ago or so posted the entire courthouse building (a 4 story muli-use building with many offices, including county and district clerk offices) with a 30.06 sign. For the last 17-18 years there has been, and still is, a metal detector at the door manned by Brazos county sheriff deputies. One cannot even enter with a small pocket knife.

Here is a link to the Ken Paxton letter from March 30, 2016 saying they are in violation, as well as a ruling letter from Ken Paxton’s office saying the matter is closed because they removed the sign. That letter is from November 10, 2016.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... thouse.pdf


I went to the courthouse today. The signs are indeed removed. Now there is a generic sign that says basically “No Weapons Allowed, PC 46.03” I called and spoke with the security department. They said they do not allow anyone with an LTC to enter the building while carrying a handgun. I asked why 30.06 was removed. They said the AG office required it, but allows the generic sign. I reiterated that it’s not a legal sign prohibiting concealed carry by an LTC holder. They again stated that a citizen with an LTC may not enter with his or her firearm. I also confirmed that the county clerk is still located in the building (along with other non court offices).

I then entered the building. Five feet from the inside of the front door is the metal detector. I stopped short of that to speak with a deputy. The polite deputy I spoke with in person told me the exact same thing.


So am I missing something? It seems to me they are pulling a fast one. They removed the sign but still deny access to LTCs at the security screening point at the entrance. I called the AG assistant’s office, and Andrea said I should launch a complaint. I’d love opinions. Should I just call the AG complaint hotline. It seems to me this matter has already been ruled on by the AG, and Brazos county is just pulling a sneaky stunt to act like they are in compliance if an AG investigator stops by to view the entrance and check for a sign (which is now gone).

Smith county said to local news that the AG's opinion is just that,an opinion that until a law is passed preventing them from posting, they will continue to do so. I believe all the signs are still up.

Luckily it enables the AG to sue the county for noncompliance.

Unfortunately, it's the tax payers who will ultimately be footing the bill.

[DEB]

I am wondering, what Court Buildings in the State are not posted? Might be easier for folks to post Court Buildings that are not posted. Coryell and Bell County are. Even the Coryell and Bell County annex's are posted 30.06/30.07. Shoot even the Municipal building in Copperas Cove is posted. I haven't looked at the Lampasas or Mills County Court Buildings, but they probably are as well. (Stated buildings instead of the commonly used verbiage of Court Houses). Seems like all of them have decided to post and thumb their collective noses at the Law and the AG with his opinions. Talked to several Law Enforcement types and was told that you will get arrested if you carry. As I am a Republican and have a job, I personally don't have the money or the time to fight against these actions. What is one to do? No one currently in power is listening or following the Law it seems. Write a letter? Yep, that's working out great.

[Soccerdad1995]

I am wondering, what Court Buildings in the State are not posted? Might be easier for folks to post Court Buildings that are not posted. Coryell and Bell County are. Even the Coryell and Bell County annex's are posted 30.06/30.07. Shoot even the Municipal building in Copperas Cove is posted. I haven't looked at the Lampasas or Mills County Court Buildings, but they probably are as well. (Stated buildings instead of the commonly used verbiage of Court Houses). Seems like all of them have decided to post and thumb their collective noses at the Law and the AG with his opinions. Talked to several Law Enforcement types and was told that you will get arrested if you carry. As I am a Republican and have a job, I personally don't have the money or the time to fight against these actions. What is one to do? No one currently in power is listening or following the Law it seems. Write a letter? Yep, that's working out great.

What to do when government oversteps its authority and becomes destructive of the rights of the people? Hmm, that's a tough one. I think some guys who used to live in Boston and Philadelphia (among other colonies) had some thoughts on this subject.

Of course, if we aren't willing to risk some hardship, then the answer is that the government gets to do whatever the heck they want.

[The Annoyed Man]

So what's it going to take for the legislature to make it clear beyond any "interpretation" other than the legislature's clear intent?

[ScottDLS]

The AG will have to pursue the case until they get a court order for them to take down the (46.03) signs and an order to allow LTC to carry in the building. If the court says the 46.03 signs are not violating the 409.211 fines law, then it will be up to someone with standing to sue the county after they are prevented from entering the building with a LTC. Since a LTC wishing to do business in the (non-court) county offices has a "right" to access this public property, they should have a good case. I'm not volunteering because I don't have the money to pursue a suit. This is an example of how determined public officials can thwart the clear intention of the law and citizens' rights with no consequence. Here we are over a year from the law gong into effect and there is plenty more time to wait.

[The Annoyed Man]

The AG will have to pursue the case until they get a court order for them to take down the (46.03) signs and an order to allow LTC to carry in the building. If the court says the 46.03 signs are not violating the 409.211 fines law, then it will be up to someone with standing to sue the county after they are prevented from entering the building with a LTC. Since a LTC wishing to do business in the (non-court) county offices has a "right" to access this public property, they should have a good case. I'm not volunteering because I don't have the money to pursue a suit. This is an example of how determined public officials can thwart the clear intention of the law and citizens' rights with no consequence. Here we are over a year from the law gong into effect and there is plenty more time to wait.

I have nothing but contempt for officials like that.

[crazy2medic]

It seems as if the local governments are free to flaunt the law at will, Waller county...etc. then ridiculous rulings that allow the barring of LTC holders from public venues as long as the property is rented by a private vender (ft worth gun show) yes it's a bluff but do the police officers working that location know it's a bluff? Do they know they can't actually enforce the .06 .07 posts?
I know we have alot of legislation scheduled for this coming session, but can we get some clarity and teeth in already passed legislation, PLEASE?

[Excaliber]

So what's it going to take for the legislature to make it clear beyond any "interpretation" other than the legislature's clear intent?

Daily $500 fines personally payable by the senior elected executive official in the jurisdiction, commencing when notice of violation is served on his or her office.

[dlh]

The usual suspects:

The Sheriff (in our county the sheriff is in charge of courthouse security) who is an elected official;

The County Commissioners;

The local judges who put a "bug" in the ear of the sheriff.

The District Attorney's Office (You can bet some of the above folks requested a written or oral opinion from their office on how to proceed).

Hope folks pursue it.

[puma guy]

So what's it going to take for the legislature to make it clear beyond any "interpretation" other than the legislature's clear intent?

Daily $500 fines personally payable by the senior elected executive official in the jurisdiction, commencing when notice of violation is served on his or her office.

I'd like to see some changes to the official oppression statutes to include officials who use knowingly use their authority to charge or direct others to arrest and charge people who are violating no laws and/or pass ordinances and laws in direct opposition to the law. A little jail time for those who like use their position and authority to threaten and intimidate others with jail time would be appropriate in my opinion. Much of my frustration lies with the sheeple who elect these idiots.

[treadlightly]

I couldn't stand it. I called the Brazos County Sheriff's Office and asked if the entire courthouse building was off limits to lawful carry.

The dispatcher who answered the phone said it was. After assuring her I wasn't going to do anything crazy I asked if she knew under what authority the County was allowed to make that ban.

She referred me to the signs on the outside of the courthouse. Otherwise, she didn't know.

That's really a shame to put law enforcement in that position. C'mon, HB560!

[nightmare69]

I couldn't stand it. I called the Brazos County Sheriff's Office and asked if the entire courthouse building was off limits to lawful carry.

The dispatcher who answered the phone said it was. After assuring her I wasn't going to do anything crazy I asked if she knew under what authority the County was allowed to make that ban.

She referred me to the signs on the outside of the courthouse. Otherwise, she didn't know.

That's really a shame to put law enforcement in that position. C'mon, HB560!

The county's attorney would be the person to ask. A dispatcher isn't going to know.

[rotor]

I couldn't stand it. I called the Brazos County Sheriff's Office and asked if the entire courthouse building was off limits to lawful carry.

The dispatcher who answered the phone said it was. After assuring her I wasn't going to do anything crazy I asked if she knew under what authority the County was allowed to make that ban.

She referred me to the signs on the outside of the courthouse. Otherwise, she didn't know.

That's really a shame to put law enforcement in that position. C'mon, HB560!

The county's attorney would be the person to ask. A dispatcher isn't going to know.

This sounds like the way to go. I would document with the county attorney also which individuals were ordering the entire building off limits, names of individuals, and then submit that to AG. Unfortunately, just like in large corporations individuals never get stuck paying for their sins. At least you will know who to blame.

[treadlightly]

Being the obsessive compulsive geek that I am, I called the Brazos County Attorney, who forwarded me to someone who answered the phone with a nicely authoritative, "Courthouse Security."

He confirmed all you gun nuts (and me, too) can leave the toys at home. He said the AG told them they weren't required (cough) to post 30.06 so they took the signs down.

The authority they enforce to keep the riff-raff out is 46.03. I believe the specific parts they are misconstruing are:

A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a)... on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court

The term "premises" is covered in 46.05:

"Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

[thatguyoverthere]

I agree with Treadlightly that the Brazos county authorities (judge/DA/sheriff/all?) are incorrectly using the "building" part of the "premise" definition. I also believe they are being intentionally obtuse since they fully understand that in this situation the "premise" is clearly the "part of a building" and not the entire "building."

We have GOT to get the AG's office to move on one of these several cases; start the fines, bring a case to trial, or whatever. This intentional obfuscation by these officials has been dragging on long enough.

I guess I'm naïve, but I honestly never would have imagined that our own elected officials would work so hard to intentionally deny a citizen's clearly stated Constitutional right. It truly is sickening to think that they seem to believe that they are above the law.