TexasCHLforum.com

nimravus01 wrote:Snip:

ELB wrote:

I note that a few posts back sbrawley mentions that a Harris County Sheriff's processing center has a 30.06 in a public access area. If this is indeed the case, take note that the OAG just last month issued a violation letter to the Killeen PD, telling them that while they can post the jail portion of their building off limits to carry, they may not do so with the public access portion: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... e_Dept.pdf
This would make a good attachment to a complaint to the Harris County Sheriff's Office, followed in three days by one to the OAG.

For government entities that are still posting at this point, they are not going to remove them without somebody complaining, and the OAG is not going to say anything to them unless notified by the complaint process set up in law. I seriously doubt they read this thread just to find new violations...

I went by the Killeen PD recently and the signs have been removed from the main entrance of the HQ.

Thanks for the follow-up!

Oh, look what google brings up:

Waller County wins fight to keep courthouse gun ban. Maybe.

And
Texas Judge OKs County’s Courthouse Gun Ban

I had not heard of this before, altho it's almost a year old. This is the lawsuit that was filed by Waller County against Holcomb, and it affects only Waller County. The OAG has separate suits against City of Austin and Waller County, the outcome(s) of which will affect the whole state.

Aaaannnnd:
This is apparently the Waller County judge's order decreeing that "Penal Code 46.03(a)(3) prohibits all firearms and other weapons in the entire govemment building that houses a court."

I have learned that a hearing was held for the OAG's suit against the City of Austin about two or three weeks ago.

If I understand what I heard correctly, the OAG filed a motion for summary judgment, and the City a "plea to jurisdiction..." or some words to that effect. If there are any lawyers that are reading this and understand this better, by all means chime in, but I believe it is basically the City of Austin arguing that the court in which the OAG filed the lawsuit does not have jurisdiction over this matter. It is not an argument about the merits of the OAG's interpretation of the fines-for-signs law, but about the process. It's possible the OAG filed in the wrong court, but I think it more likely this is just table pounding by Austin to delay the whole process.

The judge's decisions on the motions have not been released yet, and there doesn't seem to be any good way for average Joe Texan to track things like this at the trial court level, especially two or three counties away. To the best of my knowledge this hearing was probably in the 53rd Civil District Court, Honorable Scott H. Jenkins.

As for the Waller County case, (remember, Waller County SUED a citizen who made a complaint to the OAG), it may be that there has already been a decision at the trial level and the case is on appeal, but I have no further info on that. If there is somebody who can look into the Waller County judicial system, that would be nice.

Just took a look at the OAG's Ruling Letters page again.

The Texas Office of the Attorney General has issued 30 Ruling Letters covering complaints about government entities posting signs or providing oral communications in violation of the signs-for-fines law. There were four instances where the OAG received two complaints about the same possible violation, so 34 complaints about 30 possible violations.

In 14 cases, before the OAG came to a determination, the government entity that was the target of the complaint notified the OAG that it had removed the illegally posted signs. The OAG marked theses instances as Resolved and closed the complaint. In most cases signs were removed entirely; in at least a couple, county governments either moved security access points or moved entire offices in order to comply with both the law and their own security requirements.

In seven cases the OAG found no violation. In four cases this was because the signs in question were posted by private entities, not "A state agency or a political subdivision of the state...". The law does not forbid private entities leasing land from or to a state agency from posting 30.06 signs, it only forbids state actors. No violations were found in each of three other instances as follows: school exception for a school administration building, amusement park (Dallas Zoo), and a case where the signs were visible outside a government room ONLY when the room was being used as a municipal court or a government meeting subject to open records act rules was being held (signs are covered at all other times).

In one case the OAG determined there was a violation and the county was issued a violation letter and a deadline. The county then moved some offices around so that they came into compliance with the law, and the OAG closed the complaint.

In six cases, the OAG determined there is a violation. One of those is against the City of Austin, and concerns a multi-use building that houses courtrooms and non-court buildings. The OAG has sees the language of the law referring to courts and offices used by the courts (which may be posted against licensed carry) very narrowly -- in his opinion it only refers to actual courtrooms and offices used by the judge. Austin refuses to accept this view and the OAG has taken them to court. Unfortunately this case is not on any kind of expedited schedule it seems. In any case, the OAG has found violations in five other cases where entire multi-use buildings containing courts are off-limits for licensed carry. He has notified them that they are in violation of the law, but will not issue a violation letter with a deadline until the Austin case is settled.

I know that in my city, a number of government posted 30.06 signs were removed as a result of this law, so beyond the formal challenges, I suspect a number of signs came down across the state.

I note that a few posts back sbrawley mentions that a Harris County Sheriff's processing center has a 30.06 in a public access area. If this is indeed the case, take note that the OAG just last month issued a violation letter to the Killeen PD, telling them that while they can post the jail portion of their building off limits to carry, they may not do so with the public access portion: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... e_Dept.pdf
This would make a good attachment to a complaint to the Harris County Sheriff's Office, followed in three days by one to the OAG.

For government entities that are still posting at this point, they are not going to remove them without somebody complaining, and the OAG is not going to say anything to them unless notified by the complaint process set up in law. I seriously doubt they read this thread just to find new violations...

bigity wrote:Are the procedures in this thread still correct?

The South Plains Fair has posted 30.06/.07 signs at the entrance to the South Plains Fairgrounds in Texas, which is owned (as far as I can tell) by Lubbock County, making the signs invalid.

I know the AG has ruled that the governmental entity cannot be fined for something a third party has done (was anything passed this last session to deal with this?), but where do I document/submit this as an invalid sign?

There are no changes to fines-for-signs law last legislature, unfortunately.

The Texas AG web page for sign complaints is here:
https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/3006/3006-complaints

battalion74 wrote:ELB, Regarding Bexar County Tax Office:
etc

Thanks.

I am still curious as to the results of this:

(i.e. "bump")

ELB wrote:Question for Mr. Cotton,

While perusing the thread to see if anyone else had ID'd San Antonio Airport for 30.06 signs, I ran across the below post. This was in reference to the Bexar County Tax Assessor trying to ban CHL carry and metal detectors and such. Did anything ever come of this?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SlowDave wrote:So, can someone educate me as to the proper office to contact with regards to these issues for city and county owned property? I'm not looking for names, but general titles, like "City Attorney" or "County Sherrif" or something like that.

Thanks in advance!

I'll send an open records request to Bexar County. This should prove interesting.

Chas.

Question for Mr. Cotton,

While perusing the thread to see if anyone else had ID'd San Antonio Airport for 30.06 signs, I ran across the below post. This was in reference to the Bexar County Tax Assessor trying to ban CHL carry and metal detectors and such. Did anything ever come of this?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SlowDave wrote:So, can someone educate me as to the proper office to contact with regards to these issues for city and county owned property? I'm not looking for names, but general titles, like "City Attorney" or "County Sherrif" or something like that.

Thanks in advance!

I'll send an open records request to Bexar County. This should prove interesting.

Chas.

Yesterday I went to the San Antonio Airport for the first time in a long while; specifically I went to Terminal 2, baggage level. I was surprised to see on the doors a 30.06 posting. I have traveled several times thru SAT, (probably through Terminal 1 for the most part) and had never seen these before. SAT is of course operated by the city of San Antonion; also, the signs' wording were too small.

I didn't dally at the door long enought to make sure the verbiage was 100% correct, but it seemed to start of with the correct terminology ("pursuant to..." etc), and it appeared in both English and Spanish. It was headed with a gunbuster sign, and the phrase, "WEAPONS PROHIBITED," which was in letters that were probably 1" tall, but the English text underneath was very small. The Spanish text was in letters larger than the English text, but still appeared to be less than 1" tall.

The signage was part of a clear decal with red and blue letters pasted on the door. The decal also had prohibitions against pets and smoking. They appeared on all the doors facing the outside, but I didn't go to every door.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:When I use an Open Records Request on this type of issue, I don't ask for records authorizing the posting of a 30.06 sign. Governmental agencies don't need authorization to post. I ask for records indicating 1) the signs are enforceable; 2) the signs are not enforceable; and 3) any deliberations by the governing body as to the motive and goals for posting the signs.

Chas.

Aha! thx.

elb

Texasdoc wrote:
The city Attorney was suppose to call me back on Wednesday afternoon and still no call,


So anyone have a Idea what to do next??

Somewhere -- earlier in this thread, I think -- Mr. Cotton suggested using Open Records Requests to challenge the placement of 30.06 signs by government entities, basically asking them to provide all the documentation that supports the posting (and I think he noted often there is none). I was intrigued by this, and looked up a couple resources on the 'net about it, one being the Texas Attorney General's website, and another being a newspaper sponsored one that had some specific details about how to go about doing ORRs (they even provide workshops, in conjunction with the Texas AG). However, I haven't had an opportunity to do this, as Guadalupe County/Seguin city seem to be pretty law abiding concerning these signs! Do a search of the forum on Open Records and you will probably bring up the discussion and the URLs I am talking about.

An ORR triggers a timeline for the city to respond --- you won't necessarily get a good response right away, it may be "we are working on it..." but I THINK they have to give you an estimated completion date. This would let the city attorney know you are not going away if she ignores you. (also, the city can charge a fee for the documentation, but if you can argue that the info is generally useful to the public, the fee can be waived. You could probably get people on this forum to support you on the "generally useful" tack if need be.)

Good luck and keep us posted.

elb

p.s. You might want to also file an ORR demanding all records that support allowing city employees to interfere with your picture taking....

elb

jimlongley wrote:
Can anyone file an ORR? I would like to file one with Plano Independant School District. If anyone can file, is there a format that must be held to, similar to filing a SCOTUS amicus brief, or do you just write to the organization and say "ORR why do you have 30.06 posted?"

I haven't delved into this in depth yet, but here are some links I ran across so far...

Texas Attorney General Open Government webpage:
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opengovt.shtml

Texas State Library has a synopsis of the Texas Public Information Act:
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/agency/customer/pia.html

Have just run across this group, have no idea who they are, but they have, among other things, sample ORR letters:
http://www.foift.org/

Good luck.

elb

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ELB wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Here goes another Open Records Request to the City. They're wrong and I'm starting to think ORR's are a way to call the bluff of cities pulling this stuff.

Chas.

How does this work? How does an ORR call their bluff? I'd be very interested to know this tactic. Might prove useful some day!

elb

Essentially, you are requiring them to produce documents that support their decision to post 30.06 signs, or that support their opinion that it is an enforceable sign. Quite often, the response is going to be "none" and they really hate having to say that. I plan to use the information in other efforts.

Chas.

Thank you Sir!

elb

OK, my two cents:

texasparamedic wrote:
...The new boss didn't like this policy and changed it in fear that it would set the department up for liability if I defended myself while on duty.

If this is what your new boss said, your new boss is scum. He (I assume it's "he") just said the city's dollars are more important than your life and limb. I'll wager the does not make sure there are cops standing AT YOUR SIDE at all times to make sure you don't get shot on a run..You do what you have to do, but sounds like time to find a new place to work.

texasparamedic wrote: I personally feel that it has exposed myself and my coworkers to potential harm inside our building because now everyone that drives by, may be unhappy with us, or whatever the cause may be know that we do not have any means of protecting ourselves. It has happened once to me already in the past and really do not want to be placed in this position again.

I interpret everything you've said to be, "some supervisor in the Fire Department posted 30.06-ish signs on the fire station, and that doesn't look legal (it is city property), nor smart (tells every knucklehead driving by that there are unarmed firefighters inside)." If I have interpreted correctly, then yes I agree emphatically, what he has done is both illegal (unfortunatley there's no penalty for this), and stupid (ditto, especially for government stupidity).

Given your seemingly precarious position with the management already, not sure what you personally can do at this point. Would be nice if we had some kind of activist organization that could help push back on the small cases, not just the landmark-level stuff. Some scummy outfit like Code Pink chains itself to Marine recruiter's doors, their city holds the cops off for hours on end, gives them a slap on wrist, then rewards them with city-sponsored parking places in front of the recruiting office and free loudspeaker permits, and the city mayor leans on the building owner to not renew the Marines' lease. We have a certified good-guy, a non-felonious tax-paying, paramedic who wants and needs to be able to defend himself, and his city gives him a buncha crap. Grrr. [MUST NOT THROW COMPUTER THRU WINDOW! SCARES WIFE AND DOG WHEN I DO THAT!]

I will be interested to see if Charles shares his ORR strategy with us. Perhaps some other CHL'er can inquire of your city government as to why they are posting signs they are not authorized to have.

Good luck.

elb

p.s. Given that the state/city/county governments were already set straight once by the legislature regarding concealed carry by citizens, would be helpful, interesting, and righteous if the next legislature extended this logic and statute and reminded them that state/county/city employees are ALSO citizens, and may not forbid them from legally carrying at anytime, on duty or not. Would fit nicely with the law repealing pretty much all the other restrictions on places CHL'ers can go while carrying.

elb

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Here goes another Open Records Request to the City. They're wrong and I'm starting to think ORR's are a way to call the bluff of cities pulling this stuff.

Chas.

How does this work? How does an ORR call their bluff? I'd be very interested to know this tactic. Might prove useful some day!

elb