The city of Southmayd.

[joe817]

Someone should explain to him the difference between "mute" and "moot".

[jason812]

Those signs prevent criminals from carrying guns into the court rooms? Must be some pretty amazing signs!! I need to find out where they purchased them then I could prevent all crime with magic signs!!


Good luck OP, sounds like the mayor has anger, and maturity issues. What he doesn't realize, is that if the entire building is for court rooms, or court business, then he is in compliance. There is no need to get so angry, unless he is afraid they will make him move signs and just put them on the court room doors.
Still want to know how those signs stop criminals though.

Maybe if the criminals that were visiting the court for violating the law would have had signs informing them of the law they were violating, they wouldn't have to be going to the court in the first place.

[mrdavidturner]

[bubba84]

Everyone, welcome the Mayor of Southmayd...^. Looks like he joined the forum today.

[crazy2medic]

Welcome to the forum!

[Jusme]

Welcome to the forum!

Yes! Welcome to the forum. Take some time to look through some of the topics, regarding 30.06 and 30.07 signage, rules for posting said signage on publicly owned buildings, and the thought processes behind posting signs that only carry the weight of law for LTC holders. No one here wants to denigrate your or your city, but, we are very cognizant, of the laws, and how some places, erroneously place signs, out of fear, or a misunderstanding of what those signs mean.
We are ready, willing, and able to discuss, any issues, and we even welcome those with differing viewpoints.

[Soccerdad1995]

Welcome to the forum!

Yes! Welcome to the forum. Take some time to look through some of the topics, regarding 30.06 and 30.07 signage, rules for posting said signage on publicly owned buildings, and the thought processes behind posting signs that only carry the weight of law for LTC holders. No one here wants to denigrate your or your city, but, we are very cognizant, of the laws, and how some places, erroneously place signs, out of fear, or a misunderstanding of what those signs mean.
We are ready, willing, and able to discuss, any issues, and we even welcome those with differing viewpoints.

[G.A. Heath]

Mr. David Turner:

While I can neither confirm or deny that you are actually the David Turner that is the Mayor of Southmayd Texas it is my hope that you read this post. I hope you are here to observe, learn, and even participate in this fine community. While I am not part of the forum's administration I am a long term member and I feel that someone needs to reach out to you publicly and explain a few things.

First off, should you read the signs or even the statutes they reference you will notice that the signs only apply to holders of a license to carry a handgun, henceforth referred to as license holders.

Next you should be aware that license holders undergo a background check that includes criminal history, mental history, FBI fingerprint review, ect. A license holder can not have a class A or B misdemeanor in the last five years, and their license is automatically suspended should they be charged with one. A felony conviction is an automatic prohibition for a license holder and a felony charge suspends the license until it is revoked upon conviction or reinstated in the event that they are found not guilty or charges are dismissed.

The third thing you should consider is that in Texas the DPS tracks the crime stats of specific groups, including peace officers and license holders. The latter group commits crimes at a lower rate per capita than peace officers who are among the few that can carry into court rooms by default.

The fourth thing you should consider is that criminals are not bound by the signs posted nor would they care, unlike license holders.

Finally I personally find it to be highly insulting when you insinuate that I am a criminal in your letter when you wrote "if those signs were taken down that gives the criminals the right to carry guns into our courtroom area" in your letter. The only people those signs stop are license holders like myself and we already know that courtrooms are statutorily off limits per Texas Penal Code section 46.03. A criminal can not legally be a license holder and if you consider getting a speeding ticket to make one a criminal then I suggest you reconsider that position lest you find your own standard applied to yourself by a political opponent.

Perhaps a better option to posting 30.06 and 30.07 signs would be to replace those signs with one that has verbiage along the lines of "Pursuant to Texas Penal Code Chapter 46 the unlicensed possession of a handgun is prohibited." If you feel that a license holder might somehow not be familiar with Texas Penal Code 46.03 then you could post your 30.06 and 30.07 signs outside the actual court rooms and court offices.

Feel free to reply to this thread or message me if you would like to discuss this. I would strongly suggest that you message the owner of this forum, Charles L. Cotton, who has been very involved with Gun Rights to a very significant degree at both the National and Texas levels. Considering he is an attorney he can give you a much more detailed and thorough explanation. Please be patient with waiting for him to respond as he is very busy with a number of things but he is an honorable man and I personally think very highly of him.

One final suggestion, rather than look at this as an attack on your person, your city, and/or your signage I would hope that you to consider it an opportunity to learn the intricacies of this issue while being able to correct potential deficiencies and offering your citizens more appropriate signage.

[bubba84]

Good city hall, respectful of citizens rights..





Bad city hall, violating citizens rights illegally.

[mrdavidturner]

Okay, let’s dissect the last letter I saw on the thread of your fan club:


Mr. David Turner:

While I can neither confirm or deny that you are actually the David Turner that is the Mayor of Southmayd Texas it is my hope that you read this post. I hope you are here to observe, learn, and even participate in this fine community. While I am not part of the forum's administration I am a long term member and I feel that someone needs to reach out to you publicly and explain a few things.


I would hope to observe and learn a little more about why the contact was made in such a confrontational manner initially. I do understand that the rights of gun owners have been challenged and some city halls are placing signs in the manner as ours without regard to the AG opinion as well as the TSC and other court rulings on extraneous offices not being covered by 30.06/.07 signage.


First off, should you read the signs or even the statutes they reference you will notice that the signs only apply to holders of a license to carry a handgun, henceforth referred to as license holders.

Next you should be aware that license holders undergo a background check that includes criminal history, mental history, FBI fingerprint review, ect. A license holder can not have a class A or B misdemeanor in the last five years, and their license is automatically suspended should they be charged with one. A felony conviction is an automatic prohibition for a license holder and a felony charge suspends the license until it is revoked upon conviction or reinstated in the event that they are found not guilty or charges are dismissed.

The third thing you should consider is that in Texas the DPS tracks the crime stats of specific groups, including peace officers and license holders. The latter group commits crimes at a lower rate per capita than peace officers who are among the few that can carry into court rooms by default.

The fourth thing you should consider is that criminals are not bound by the signs posted nor would they care, unlike license holders.

Finally I personally find it to be highly insulting when you insinuate that I am a criminal in your letter when you wrote "if those signs were taken down that gives the criminals the right to carry guns into our courtroom area" in your letter. The only people those signs stop are license holders like myself and we already know that courtrooms are statutorily off limits per Texas Penal Code section 46.03. A criminal can not legally be a license holder and if you consider getting a speeding ticket to make one a criminal then I suggest you reconsider that position lest you find your own standard applied to yourself by a political opponent.


Perhaps a better option to posting 30.06 and 30.07 signs would be to replace those signs with one that has verbiage along the lines of "Pursuant to Texas Penal Code Chapter 46 the unlicensed possession of a handgun is prohibited." If you feel that a license holder might somehow not be familiar with Texas Penal Code 46.03 then you could post your 30.06 and 30.07 signs outside the actual court rooms and court offices.


I agree in part with what you are saying here, but please understand, if a person that is NOT an officer of the court is in possession of a weapon while in the court, the bailiff can readily identify that person as being in violation, therefore protecting all participants involved. Additionally, as stated by you, signs outside the actual court rooms and court offices are covered by statute. If you look closely at the photograph taken of the “bad city hall” posted on the forum, you will see through the double glass doors there is a service window. That window IS the office of the clerk collecting the fees and fines from the court. Also, through those glass doors, is the room where the judge holds his court. The building is small. It is not separated by long hallways, or multiple rooms divided into sections like the “good city hall”, I wish it were the case. Maybe one day, when the town grows, we can have a larger municipal building that can hold a more efficient body of offices serving the community with a separation allowing for avoidance of issues such as this. I have spoken to the judge, and he has invited you or someone from your group to come and see first hand the proximity of the court staff to the front entrance. Not as a challenge, not a debate, observation.


Feel free to reply to this thread or message me if you would like to discuss this. I would strongly suggest that you message the owner of this forum, Charles L. Cotton, who has been very involved with Gun Rights to a very significant degree at both the National and Texas levels. Considering he is an attorney he can give you a much more detailed and thorough explanation. Please be patient with waiting for him to respond as he is very busy with a number of things but he is an honorable man and I personally think very highly of him.

One final suggestion, rather than look at this as an attack on your person, your city, and/or your signage I would hope that you to consider it an opportunity to learn the intricacies of this issue while being able to correct potential deficiencies and offering your citizens more appropriate signage.

[srothstein]

I would hope to observe and learn a little more about why the contact was made in such a confrontational manner initially. I do understand that the rights of gun owners have been challenged and some city halls are placing signs in the manner as ours without regard to the AG opinion as well as the TSC and other court rulings on extraneous offices not being covered by 30.06/.07 signage.

Mr. Turner,

I cannot say how the initial contact was made but I can apologize for the group if you took it as confrontational. I am confident that it was not intended to be that way. I can remind you that it is much harder to convey tone in a letter than in person. While I tend to try to meet in person to talk about things, I will point out that the law does require the letter to start any legal process that can be binding. Some of us have had success by talking, but many of us have had little success when talking with governmental officials about anything. This has taught us to do things in the legal manner, by writing.

Many of us are also tired of being told we are suspected criminals simply because we decide to carry a weapon for protection. This may also made us much more likely to come across as confrontational when we don't intend to be, and made some of us more confrontational in fact.

I agree in part with what you are saying here, but please understand, if a person that is NOT an officer of the court is in possession of a weapon while in the court, the bailiff can readily identify that person as being in violation, therefore protecting all participants involved. Additionally, as stated by you, signs outside the actual court rooms and court offices are covered by statute. If you look closely at the photograph taken of the “bad city hall” posted on the forum, you will see through the double glass doors there is a service window. That window IS the office of the clerk collecting the fees and fines from the court. Also, through those glass doors, is the room where the judge holds his court. The building is small. It is not separated by long hallways, or multiple rooms divided into sections like the “good city hall”, I wish it were the case. Maybe one day, when the town grows, we can have a larger municipal building that can hold a more efficient body of offices serving the community with a separation allowing for avoidance of issues such as this. I have spoken to the judge, and he has invited you or someone from your group to come and see first hand the proximity of the court staff to the front entrance. Not as a challenge, not a debate, observation.

I understand what you are saying about the location of the clerk's office and the doorway. This would be a valid answer except for one principle contained in the Attorney General's opinion and the law in general. You cannot use the excuse of the office by the door to make the building off limits, which is the effect you are supporting. If there are offices in the building that are not the court's, people with a license must be allowed to go to those offices. I am not sure how to solve this problem for you since I have not been to your city, but I would first suggest rearranging offices so the non-court offices are by the door and then you can post the whole area around the court and it's offices. This may not be feasible, but the suggestion may help come up with other ideas that would work.

I would also suggest another answer is not posting the building at all. I say this because it solve all of the problems you have. First, it appears to me from the description given here that the postings you currently have are probably illegal. Removing the current posting would solve the potential problem of them being illegal.

Second, the postings you have only apply to people who are carrying under the authority of an LTC. They mean nothing to criminals, police officers, retired police officers, security guards, travelers, or anyone else who is carrying a weapon under any authority other than the LTC. Of this group, you should be concerned about the criminals obviously, but the signs will never apply to them.

Third, and most important, the signs are not necessary to ban weapons in the courtroom. Penal Code section 46.03 already makes weapons illegal in court rooms and court offices without written authorization by the court. The only exemption to that law is for officers of the court and emergency services personnel responding to an emergency. Thus, even without the signs, if the bailiff sees someone carrying a weapon, he may take the action necessary for protection.

As an alternative to not posting at all, you could post signs reminding people that it is a third degree felony to carry a weapon inside a courtroom or office used by the court. This would be legal and allow licensed carry inside the hallways leading to offices that are not court offices and help keep people from carrying inside the courtroom and clekr's office. It can be posted on the front doors to save money and effort of posting only the courtrooms.

Please feel free to contact me if I can help you come up with a solution to this problem that would be acceptable to all involved.

[G.A. Heath]

Thank you for responding to my post. Please do not think I am being confrontational, the post you quoted is my first interaction with you or anyone else on this subject.

The OP (original poster) who started this thread and filed the complaint(s) apperently feels that a window in a foyer does not qualify as an office of the court, while you do. I do not know how a court would likely feel on the issue so my personal opinion does not matter. As for the confrontational manner the OP used, that would be for him to explain, and perhaps you to consider in how you percieved his initial contact. Please understand that we as a community do not try to be antogonistic except when there is no other option.

I have worked with my county commisioners court on this issue in the past and got results that worked for everyone. During our discussions I made it clear that I would report them had they posted but I also made it clear how we could work together. Even though we had approached the issue as adversaries we are all friendly and have rather friendly talks anytime we meet.

I do have an idea how you can help yourself and us as a community, I would ask you to consider the following:

While a mayor can not request an opinion from the Attorney General as far as I know, your county attorney can. Perhaps you could ask your county attorney (or another authorized party) in your official capacity as mayor to draft and submit a request for your specific situation. Should you prove successful in getting an opinion it would protect you from dealing with future complaints and help the gun rights movement know how the AG's office would likely deal with similar situations in the future.

Please let us know how you intend to proceed, provided that you can and all the best. Pehaps we should all do away with the us vs. them attitude and try to work together as Texans.

[bubba84]

Any approach to this situation is confrontational. My initial email was posted in its entirety in my op here. It is polite but firm.

Flat out, no ifs, ands or butts, your city is in violation of the law. You cant post the entirety of the building based on that building partially housing courts and court used offices.

[mrdavidturner]

Thank you Mr Heath and Mr Rothstein for reasonable comments and thoughtful contributions to the topic. You have given me a lot to think about. I do appreciate the time you have invested in educating me about this issue. Had the O/P handled it in a more respectable fashion, there certainly could have been a different outcome. Please remember this when contacting other cities with education on your causes in the future. “1. Don’t rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, 2. older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters with all purity.” (1 Timothy 5:1-2; CSB).

To be honest had I been given the opportunity to discuss this more, had my voice been heard from the O/P, and my questions answered in the same respectful manner you both have shown me here, I would have been more likely to take the signs down until a ruling could be made. Due to the confrontational manner it was handled though, I pretty much dug my heals in from the beginning of this ordeal. It seemed to me when I did find this thread that the O/P was like; Hey look at what I did. I’m going to tell on them, If they don’t do exactly what I say. Then the comments made in this thread before the two of you joined the discussion seemed to me to be a childish mentality towards making their points, making assumptions not expressed in the original correspondence, and generally mocking my responses. If you want to be true neighbors: Give people like me a reasonable time to respond. Do you have to tell big brother right at the three day mark or could you have a little more discussion? Discussion shouldn’t be offered after you have filed the complaint. It should happen before you make that last choice. I would even go as far to say after a few weeks of playing nice that you give one more chances of “you got three days and I will turn you in” as the last card you would ever play. Of course a no response to the request from a city or Mayor would be a sign of noncompliance and should be turned in after 2-3 attempts I would think.

Suggestion's for future dealings:

1. Make the notifications in a respectful manner. Maybe one of you two could come up with a letter that other members could send to cities like mine. Try to open the lines of communication and start discussions with cities like ours.

2. Use this forum to get input on what the letter should say. What to do when an entity responds and what to do if they don’t respond. Discuss responses as a group and then respond to the entity in question reasonably and respectfully. You will get a lot further in your cause I would think.

Also consider I have a full time job, a family, a personal life that includes volunteering at my local church, along with my mayoral duties. I spent all of my spare time researching this topic the nights I had to read and research on it. This time took away from my personal time due to the tight time frame the law allows. I did reach out to the AG’s office and was told originally that taking them down was the best practice according to my secretary, but he would have the attorney from his office call us back. The part I have not shared until now, because the O/P stated he already filed a complaint with the AG office before the required 3 business days were up, is that the AG’s Attorney called and said 2 similar cases are being heard right now and he could not advise us on how to handle it at this time. He recommended we consult our local attorney. The local attorney costs about $200-250 an hour. I AM A SMALL TOWN with a small budget. Our attorney is payed by the job. Mind you this is tax payer money being spent. I did not want to spend it if I could keep from it. After being turned in to the AG’s office before I could even call my attorney was an insult to no end. I regretfully lost my tongue when replying to the O/P, but I received the email Tuesday morning around 9 am ish as I recall. (It was sent on Monday night at 10:45pm if I recall correctly). The timer doesn’t start until the next day of business when officially received. So 3 days if you can count is 1 Tuesday - Wednesday 2 Wednesday - Thursday 3 Thursday to Friday. The 72 hour mark being Friday 9 am. To be fair now mind you I stayed up late asking the O/P a question on Thursday night. I was going to look for the email response the next morning. Based on the response or non-response I had several choices. 1. Have the city staff take the signs down Friday until I could converse with the O/P at more length, decide to leave them down or place them back up. 2. Take the signs down save the attorney money and await the trials currently going on. Maybe follow up with the AG’s office for a ruling later. 3. Call our attorney’s and pay the fee to fight it. 4. Ignore it until I get the official complaint from the AG’s office. 5. Get our attorney involved to contradict the complaint, the list could go on. There are other possible options as you can see from these 5 examples. I was honestly on the fence. I had advice from others I had spoken with and wanted to see if the O/P was going to remain hostile or be willing to discuss the topic more and possibly give me a little more time. Well as already stated the choice was made for me. I was furious at the time, I was “MUTED and the point was MOOT” as I wrote the letter back to the O/P. After I calmed down though I thought to myself “what was / is his angle” and I feel like I found it here in this thread, hence my first shocked emoji response to this thread, if you can appreciate the irony of that?

I am only slightly perturbed to be treated like the O/P originally treated me. Very ungentlemanly like in my humble opinion. Hence my hostility back to him on Friday morning. My apologies for my rudeness though. I don’t have any more time to spend on this topic. I intend to work on next year’s budget, prepare a disaster plan, and to plan for future growth in our community. As I leave my legacy as a servant to Southmayd I hope I can continue to make wise decisions. As we grow and build a separate courtroom, I will move the signs as the law states. I appreciate the information. For now the signs will remain and I will await the AG offices response at this point. Thank you all for bringing the information to us.

Sincerely,

The Honorable Mayor of Southmayd

David Turner

[bubba84]

How would you have me approach you? As a peasant with hat in hand asking for the government, no matter how small, to consider my opinion of how they should treat law abiding gun owners?

I dont work that way, like I explained to you in email, I am a law abiding citizen and know the “rules of the game” to the point that I know how to play but also the rules the government has to play by.

You got mad because you got challenged, told how you had to play and didn't like it. You can “dig your heels in” all you want. You can try to spin it all you want. The law is clear, black and white, and you are in violation of it. You were contacted as such, a violator of not only the law but mine and every other lawful citizens rights.

You received the email at 10:45 on monday night. I contacted the AG’s office as I said I would on friday. Between monday and friday is tuesday, wednesday, and thursday, those are three business days and they had expired.

You are in violation of the law and will continually be until the signs come down, whether by choice of yours or force of the AG.