Fines for Signs-1 Year Mark

[locke_n_load]

So the law that that AG can sue a subdivision of the state for posting unenforceable 30.06 signs has been on the books for a year now. So far, I count 18 total ruling letters, a lot of which went what I would consider "the right way".
https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/3006/3 ... ng-letters

However, that is 18 rulings out of probably hundreds.

I mostly want to see some justice for the Houston zoo, who took down their signs, only to later put them back up. I am disappointed that after a year, there are still so many counties/municipalities breaking the law, with no consequence.

What signage are you waiting for an opinion on?

Sidenote, I also think this law lost a lot of teeth with the recent OAG opinion that a private company can post signs on public property and that they will not be fined, nor can the municipality be responsible for signs that they didn't put up themselves.

[jb2012]

I'm disappointed myself. I was hoping that these lawsuits would be much more aggressive.

[Papa_Tiger]

I'm disappointed myself. I was hoping that these lawsuits would be much more aggressive.

Caution is advisable. Win the low hanging fruit cases, establish case law and precedent, then go after tougher nuts to crack. Slow and steady wins the race.

[The Wall]

Maybe the NRA should ask and report on this issue.

[jb2012]

I'm disappointed myself. I was hoping that these lawsuits would be much more aggressive.

Caution is advisable. Win the low hanging fruit cases, establish case law and precedent, then go after tougher nuts to crack. Slow and steady wins the race.

You have a good point, I just think that several aggressive lawsuits would scare the rest away, so to speak.

[Kolamer]

What ever happened to the posting at the Fort Worth Zoo? Last time I was there back in I want to say early June, the signs were still up.

[AJSully421]

What ever happened to the posting at the Fort Worth Zoo? Last time I was there back in I want to say early June, the signs were still up.

They have obviously been back burnered, likely because their claim that they are an educational institution, plus the fact that the sign is a mishmash of 06/07 anyway. The last few times I have been there, I just concealed and kept quiet... Just like the gun show, the kids museum, Harris Hospital, Ridgmar Mall...

[ELB]

I'm disappointed myself. I was hoping that these lawsuits would be much more aggressive.

Caution is advisable. Win the low hanging fruit cases, establish case law and precedent, then go after tougher nuts to crack. Slow and steady wins the race.

You have a good point, I just think that several aggressive lawsuits would scare the rest away, so to speak.

City of Austin is a pretty big target, and there is a lawsuit filed against them. That will be very precedential I think. The AG has drawn a pretty close and clear line that only in court rooms, not court houses, may licensed carry be prohibited, and that is the main point of contention between the AG and several counties. I think the only reason he filed suit against Waller County before getting a decision on Austin City Hall is that Waller County was being such a donkey with suing Holcomb over his complaint.

There's really no point in lining up a bunch of other lawsuits until a final decision is reached in the Austin City Hall case, and whichever side loses no doubt will appeal. It will be interesting to see if the Texas Supreme Court takes it up.

The zoos are a different issue than court houses, but with the opinion that government entities are not responsible for non-profits posting signs I'm not sure any hay can be made there until the Legislature takes it up...if they take it up. While it would be satisfying to see the zoos smacked down, there are not a lot of them, and even taking into account other non-profits, this is not a huge issue. Much progress has been made bringing strictly governmental entities to heel, and that's pretty good. Here in Seguin more signs came down than stayed up, and the only one I know of that shouldn't still be up falls into the court room category, so need to await the Austin City Hall lawsuit decision(s).

[ScottDLS]

The biggest problem I have with testing the signs at the Ft Worth zoo (by carrying openly), is that the statute they are relying on (46.03) saying they are a school, is a felony. Basically, what you would have to do is open carry while in the zoo and refuse to exit when confronted, then wait until they called the police or physically ejected you from the park. One forum member open carried at the Houston Zoo and was confronted by security and left due to not wanting to potentially face a felony charge, even one that was likely to be thrown out. I guess technically you'd have to get indicted by a grand jury (unlikely) to actually face a felony charge, but that's a bridge to far, even for me...

[locke_n_load]

I'm disappointed myself. I was hoping that these lawsuits would be much more aggressive.

Caution is advisable. Win the low hanging fruit cases, establish case law and precedent, then go after tougher nuts to crack. Slow and steady wins the race.

You have a good point, I just think that several aggressive lawsuits would scare the rest away, so to speak.

City of Austin is a pretty big target, and there is a lawsuit filed against them. That will be very precedential I think. The AG has drawn a pretty close and clear line that only in court rooms, not court houses, may licensed carry be prohibited, and that is the main point of contention between the AG and several counties. I think the only reason he filed suit against Waller County before getting a decision on Austin City Hall is that Waller County was being such a donkey with suing Holcomb over his complaint.

There's really no point in lining up a bunch of other lawsuits until a final decision is reached in the Austin City Hall case, and whichever side loses no doubt will appeal. It will be interesting to see if the Texas Supreme Court takes it up.

The zoos are a different issue than court houses, but with the opinion that government entities are not responsible for non-profits posting signs I'm not sure any hay can be made there until the Legislature takes it up...if they take it up. While it would be satisfying to see the zoos smacked down, there are not a lot of them, and even taking into account other non-profits, this is not a huge issue. Much progress has been made bringing strictly governmental entities to heel, and that's pretty good. Here in Seguin more signs came down than stayed up, and the only one I know of that shouldn't still be up falls into the court room category, so need to await the Austin City Hall lawsuit decision(s).

I say line up the lawsuits - I bet most cities aren't searching OAG opinions and cases very often, and wouldn't even notice when Waller County loses it's case.
I'm actually more interested in temporary events, like festivals and the Rodeo grounds, things I want to go to. Like ACL in the other thread, I want word on if a private event that is denying entry to license holders is legal, as we cannot be considered trespassing just for having a firearm. In my opinion, if it sounds like 30.06 in a ticket agreement, it should be treated as such for things on public property - not enforceable, and you cannot be denied entry for it, if you bought a ticket/entry fee.

[jb2012]

I'm actually more interested in temporary events, like festivals and the Rodeo grounds, things I want to go to. Like ACL in the other thread, I want word on if a private event that is denying entry to license holders is legal, as we cannot be considered trespassing just for having a firearm. In my opinion, if it sounds like 30.06 in a ticket agreement, it should be treated as such for things on public property - not enforceable, and you cannot be denied entry for it, if you bought a ticket/entry fee.

[Soccerdad1995]

I'm actually more interested in temporary events, like festivals and the Rodeo grounds, things I want to go to. Like ACL in the other thread, I want word on if a private event that is denying entry to license holders is legal, as we cannot be considered trespassing just for having a firearm. In my opinion, if it sounds like 30.06 in a ticket agreement, it should be treated as such for things on public property - not enforceable, and you cannot be denied entry for it, if you bought a ticket/entry fee.

I'd really like to see the law tightened up here to only exclude a tiny handful of government owned locations, like Charles is pushing for.

I'd also like to see criminal or at least civil penalties for every instance that a LTC holder is wrongfully refused entry to a non-prohibited location. Payable by the offending party and to the aggrieved party. So if the Houston Rodeo wands me and then denies my entry, the HSLRA pays me, say $10,000 for the violation of my civil rights to use my (government owned) property. Additional fines and possible criminal charges would apply if there were any other crimes committed such as wrongful detention, assault, etc.

[XinTX]

I'd also like to see criminal or at least civil penalties for every instance that a LTC holder is wrongfully refused entry to a non-prohibited location. Payable by the offending party and to the aggrieved party. So if the Houston Rodeo wands me and then denies my entry, the HSLRA pays me, say $10,000 for the violation of my civil rights to use my (government owned) property. Additional fines and possible criminal charges would apply if there were any other crimes committed such as wrongful detention, assault, etc.

^This. I'd like to see the penalties applied to the INDIVIDUAL who wrongly detains or refuses entry. People don't care if they're not the one picking up the bill. But apply the penalties to those issuing the orders to detain or deny as well. Don't put the taxpayers on the hook. If people know they'll be paying the fines out of their own pocket (rather than the pockets of others) they'll be more careful.

[Pk3]

Ok, the wife and I are taking a group of kids on a filed trip to the ftw. Zoo ( private christian school ). I was hoping someone here could tell me about signage. Hopefully i can legally carry but hey it is what it is.

[doncb]

I'm disappointed myself. I was hoping that these lawsuits would be much more aggressive.

Caution is advisable. Win the low hanging fruit cases, establish case law and precedent, then go after tougher nuts to crack. Slow and steady wins the race.

The low hanging fruit is just hanging there and the AG isn't doing anything. They can go after the easy ones while they deal with the places like Austin.