30.06 Ruling Letters

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby crazy2medic » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:06 am

Flightmare wrote:http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/judge-makes-ruling-in-fight-over-guns-at-austin-city-hall

The city claims that guns aren't allowed at City Hall because community court and teen court are held there on occassion. The judge agreed with the city that the gun ban should include the entire building not just the part where court is held.

“That means that basically a government could designate a room way off in the corner of the building as a court and then say 'ah ha we have a court therefore our entire building is off-limits,’” he said

But the judge agreed with some other arguments the Attorney General made -- for example the ban should only be in effect on the days court is held.

So does that mean the posted signs need to be removed and temporary sign go up on the days the "courts" are in session? Can the AG appeal this to a higher court?
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5840
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby ELB » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:33 am

crazy2medic wrote:
Flightmare wrote:http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/judge-makes-ruling-in-fight-over-guns-at-austin-city-hall

The city claims that guns aren't allowed at City Hall because community court and teen court are held there on occassion. The judge agreed with the city that the gun ban should include the entire building not just the part where court is held.

“That means that basically a government could designate a room way off in the corner of the building as a court and then say 'ah ha we have a court therefore our entire building is off-limits,’” he said

But the judge agreed with some other arguments the Attorney General made -- for example the ban should only be in effect on the days court is held.

So does that mean the posted signs need to be removed and temporary sign go up on the days the "courts" are in session? Can the AG appeal this to a higher court?


Dagnabbit, I have been watching for this everyday and Flightmare scooped me. :totap:

Anyway, I am a bit confused as to what the judge actually did, because of this paragraph in the article:

“Walker and Cargill say the next step is trial.


So did the judge rule only on motions? Then why such specific order, i.e. "yes you can ban guns in the whole building but only days court is in session?" And it wasn't the judge I thought it would be.

Of to google and research.

In any case, I didn't expect any Travis County judge to rule in favor of the AG's interpretation, and actually am surprised/pleased that she put in the "only on days court is in session" part. To get any fully pro-2A decision was going to require the case to be appealed up and out of Travis County to the state level.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby Scott Farkus » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:22 pm

I'm confused. Can somebody clarify where we are on this and what exactly is the status of the lawsuit against the COA? This judge ruled that having a "courtroom", even if set up in the corner of a broom closet, allows the entire building to be posted but only when court is in session? And now it goes to a jury trial?

Very disappointed this wasn't addressed by the Legislature this past session. This nonsense where cities get to flout what is clearly the intent of the law needs to end yesterday.

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5840
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

Postby ELB » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:33 pm

Scott Farkus wrote:I'm confused. Can somebody clarify where we are on this and what exactly is the status of the lawsuit against the COA? This judge ruled that having a "courtroom", even if set up in the corner of a broom closet, allows the entire building to be posted but only when court is in session? And now it goes to a jury trial?

Very disappointed this wasn't addressed by the Legislature this past session. This nonsense where cities get to flout what is clearly the intent of the law needs to end yesterday.


I think we will have to see the actual order. She (the judge) apparently wrote it on 22 Dec, and it was mailed to the AG and City of Austin on 27 Dec. The court does not post documents online for free perusal, you have to order them from the clerk and it is not free or terribly fast. Maybe on of the newspapers will publish it,
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests