Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

This forum is for general legislative discussions not specific to any given legislative session. It will remain open.

Moderator: carlson1


Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby Papa_Tiger » Sun Jul 10, 2016 10:34 am

mr1337 wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:They've taken it to new heights by posting Zilker Park. My guess is that they are going to try to claim to be an amusement park because of the Zilker Zephyr.

https://www.texas3006.com/view.php?id=9174

"Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park (Check) where amusement rides (only one certified by the state, the Zilker Zephyr) are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million (Check), encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area (Check - Zilker Park is 350 Acres), is enclosed with access only through controlled entries (Nope), is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year (Yep), and has security guards on the premises at all times (Nope). The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

So they fail the Amusement Park definition on two counts: Enclosed with access only through controlled entries and security guards at all times.


And guess where I'm going tomorrow to get some nice pictures for the AG? :rules:

This guy. :tiphat:

Drove through Zilker Park today and didn't see any signs that would be prominent enough (or new enough) to be a legal 30.06 or 30.07. However, driving by the Palmer Events Center, it looked like EVERY door had (probably) a 30.07 on it. Didn't go back to look or get pictures.

Palmer and Auditorium Shores are owned by the city:
Palmer Events Center: http://propaccess.traviscad.org/clientd ... _id=103843
Auditorium Shores: http://propaccess.traviscad.org/clientd ... _id=190736

So if either of these have a 30.06 on them, they need to be sent to the AG.

Auditorium Shores has a Red TABC License, so you can't carry there anyway.


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby crazy2medic » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:53 am

Scott Farkus wrote:Someone a while back suggested we flip the law to require that no sign can be posted by a city/county etc. unless preapproved by the AG. Seems like this needs to be a priority in the next session. Do away with every single statutory off-limit area except maybe actual courtrooms and secured areas of jails/prisons, and then make every single government entity that wishes to post anything apply for an official seal from the AG's office that must be attached to the sign. Any posting found without the seal is a felony for the head of the agency and/or directing board/council responsible for the facility.

Really, really tired of this.


(Every four years the sign must be approved by the AG's office, the sign must have a posted expiration date and becomes invalid at midnight on the last day of expiration!)
Last edited by crazy2medic on Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7826
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby mojo84 » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:57 am

JALLEN wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
JALLEN wrote:Where is this Official Oppression statute?

http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-39-03.html
Texas Penal Code § 39.03. Official Oppression

(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful;  or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, “sexual harassment” means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.


Has anyone been charged or convicted under this statute.

I suppose the loophole is "knows is unlawful."


I think once they've been notified by the AG office, they know.

User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts: 4957
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby puma guy » Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:04 pm

JALLEN wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
JALLEN wrote:Where is this Official Oppression statute?

http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-39-03.html
Texas Penal Code § 39.03. Official Oppression

(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful;  or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, “sexual harassment” means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.


Has anyone been charged or convicted under this statute.

I suppose the loophole is "knows is unlawful."

Not being a lawyer it would seem to apply, so I asked in previous posts why this sort of action by official wouldn't be construed as official oppression and Charles responded. I don't recall his exact reply, but I remember it wouldn't apply. I may try to do a search, but I don't think it was a thread about official oppression , just a post.
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
Image


Return to “General Legislative Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest