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


Topic author
stash
Senior Member
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:04 am
Location: Woodcreek

Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby stash » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:06 am

Looks like Austin officials are not going to back down from the AG's Tuesday opinion regarding firearms in city hall. Looks like the city has until 7/20/2016 to acquiesce or face a suit or fines. Appears the ball is back in the AG's court.
TSRA
NRA
TFC
USMC 1961-1966

User avatar

flowrie
Senior Member
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:16 pm
Location: DFW area

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby flowrie » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:22 am

stash wrote:Looks like Austin officials are not going to back down from the AG's Tuesday opinion regarding firearms in city hall. Looks like the city has until 7/20/2016 to acquiesce or face a suit or fines. Appears the ball is back in the AG's court.


Typical, liberal city, won't follow the law.
Hmmm, who else do I know of that will not follow the law.
NRA Life Member, NGAT Life Member, NTSA Member


DevilDawg
Senior Member
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:53 pm

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby DevilDawg » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:31 am

And the tax payers will get stuck paying for something civil servants did against the law. We need to make the fines payable on a personal level to help ensure these cases are fought on legit reasons and not because a room full of liberal lawyers wanted to. When it cost them money personally they will be far less likely to be so frivolous with case law.

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby JALLEN » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:49 am

Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.


Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby Papa_Tiger » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:15 am

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.

User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts: 4990
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby puma guy » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:13 am

I hope there's an effort in 2017 to add language to SB273 to penalize the individuals who make the decisions to defy the law.
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

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7873
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby mojo84 » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:19 am

puma guy wrote:I hope there's an effort in 2017 to add language to SB273 to penalize the individuals who make the decisions to defy the law.


I like the idea of throwing them in jail and paying the fines personally. There is just something extremely bothersome and exceptionally egregious when it comes to elected public officials willingly and openly defying the laws established to protect the citizens' rights.

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby JALLEN » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:28 am

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.


So, file a complaint. It's free and relatively painless. Go verify the sign, take pictures. Notify the owner, city, county, park district, etc. Wait three days. Send your complaint with proofs to Texas AG. Strike a blow for liberty!
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

User avatar

AJSully421
Senior Member
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Benbrook / SW Fort Worth

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby AJSully421 » Sat Jul 09, 2016 6:56 pm

Here's my deal... The city has been informed that they are violating a LTCer's privilege to carry in the city hall. Review the Official Oppression statute. Why can we not bring every single employee working in that building up on charges?
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan, 1964

30.06 signs only make criminals and terrorists safer.

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby JALLEN » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:31 pm

AJSully421 wrote:Here's my deal... The city has been informed that they are violating a LTCer's privilege to carry in the city hall. Review the Official Oppression statute. Why can we not bring every single employee working in that building up on charges?


Who are you going to get to file charges?

Maybe you can buy the DA a drink or something.

Where is this Official Oppression statute?
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

User avatar

TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby TexasJohnBoy » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:32 pm

AJSully421 wrote:Here's my deal... The city has been informed that they are violating a LTCer's privilege to carry in the city hall. Review the Official Oppression statute. Why can we not bring every single employee working in that building up on charges?

Every single employee isn't making the stupid decisions. There's probably one decision maker in question here.
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22797
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Contact:

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby The Annoyed Man » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:06 pm

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.
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre


mr1337
Senior Member
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby mr1337 » Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:02 am

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:
Keep calm and carry.

Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby JALLEN » Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:59 am

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."
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm

Re: Austin City Hall to Fight AG Opinion

Postby Scott Farkus » Sun Jul 10, 2016 10:17 am

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.


Return to “General Legislative Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests