Update Question

[thatguyoverthere]

Sorry if this has already been discussed lately. I did a quick search of the forum, but didn't see any recent information.

So what's the latest situation with the AG's investigation of the Waller county courthouse carry prohibition? I recall that a local Waller county judge had ruled that the prohibition in the entire building was A-OK, but I don't remember seeing any disposition from the AG's office.

And related, what's the status of Waller county's lawsuit against Terry Holcomb for filing the complaint against them in the first place?

Also related: does anyone know of any other AG investigations that are still open regarding any other cities or counties that have had complaints filed? Wasn't there a similar complaint that had been filed against the city of Austin?

I was just curious to see how our "fines for signs" law is coming along in application.

[Papa_Tiger]

No news, no news and glacially slowly. We may see enforcement by the next ice age at this point, but that is generally how fast the justice system works anyway.

[TreyHouston]

Unless they are coming after YOU!

[OneGun]

So, here is an update that I came across today. Terry Holcomb Sr. sent Waller County a letter contenting that the signage was in violation of state law. Waller county turned around and sued Holcomb in the District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the signage was consistent with the law.
The district court found for the county. Holcomb appealed saying that he should not have been sued merely for sending a letter. The appellate court ruled in Holcomb's favor, reversed the trial court's finding and assessed Holcomb's fees against the county. The Appellate court wrote:

This declaratory-judgment action arises from a dispute between Waller
County and Terry Holcomb, Sr. as to whether the County may bar holders of
concealed-handgun licenses, like Holcomb, from entering the Waller County
Courthouse with a handgun, and whether signage purporting to do so violates
Section 411.209(a) of the Government Code. The County obtained a declaratory
judgment that its signage does not violate Section 411.209(a), and Holcomb appeals.
We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the district court with
instructions to dismiss the County’s suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after
it holds further proceedings for the limited purpose of awarding to Holcomb his court
costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, other expenses incurred in defending against the
action as are equitable and just, and any other relief available under the Texas
Citizens Participation Act.