30.06 Ruling Letters

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 38
Posts: 6115
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#121

Post by ELB » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:13 am

tool4daman wrote:I may be wrong, but...

I thought I had heard from one of the Texas Firearms Coalition podcasts that the off limits for school functions only applies to grounds under the school’s control. Otherwise, if you are eating in a restaurant, and a school bus full of kids on a field trip stop in, you are in violation.

So I don’t get how the City Hall could be off limits because of school field trips.
I was under that impression too, but also I have not seen all of the City's and the OAG's documents/briefs on this, so not sure exactly what they are talking about. It may be that if the Austin ISD and City Hall have a formal agreement to do certain school activities at the City Hall building (which is alluded to in the judge's ruling), that falls into the school-sponsored basket. That would be a different situation than a school bus stopping at McDonalds. But this is only speculation on my part.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3400
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#122

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:51 am

ELB wrote:
tool4daman wrote:I may be wrong, but...

I thought I had heard from one of the Texas Firearms Coalition podcasts that the off limits for school functions only applies to grounds under the school’s control. Otherwise, if you are eating in a restaurant, and a school bus full of kids on a field trip stop in, you are in violation.

So I don’t get how the City Hall could be off limits because of school field trips.
I was under that impression too, but also I have not seen all of the City's and the OAG's documents/briefs on this, so not sure exactly what they are talking about. It may be that if the Austin ISD and City Hall have a formal agreement to do certain school activities at the City Hall building (which is alluded to in the judge's ruling), that falls into the school-sponsored basket. That would be a different situation than a school bus stopping at McDonalds. But this is only speculation on my part.
But the scary thing is that such an agreement might be too similar to a High School sports team renting out the back room of a restaurant for their team dinner / awards ceremony. Suddenly all the other patrons of that restaurant would be at risk of unknowingly committing a crime.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 38
Posts: 6115
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#123

Post by ELB » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:02 pm

Further summarizing, for my own benefit if no one else's:

The AG complained that the
1. Gunbuster sign and the
2. oral warnings by security officers at the main entrance(s) of City Hall
violated the provisions of "fines for signs" law because they prevented LTC holders from carrying in the parts of City Hall that were not courtrooms, and the definition of "premises" restricts the city to controlling LTC carry only in courtrooms.

The City argued that they were not in violation because they could ban LTC carry throughout the entire building for three reasons:
1. City Hall contains rooms that are used as courts, and the "premises" definition means the whole building can be restricted.
2. The "school-sponsored activity" prohibition on LTC carry applies because the Peoples Art Gallery displays Austin ISD student artwork through an agreement between the City and AISD.
3. The "open meetings" prohibition on LTC carry applies because the city holds open meetings under Gov Code 511.

The judge decided:
1. The gunbuster sign has no effect on LTC carry, so the city is not in violation of the "fines for signs" law. In general this is a good thing for LTC holders.
2. On "premises:
a. The "building or portion of building" definition of "premises" means the City gets to choose whether to prohibit LTC carry only in court rooms or thoughout the whole building. BUT,
b. There is a temporal restriction on the location restriction: the City may ban LTC carry throughout the whole building ONLY when the courtrooms are being used. If the court meets only 3 or 4 times a month, the building may not be restricted from licensed carry for the entire month. This is not as good as we would like but this is still a win, or at least not a complete loss for licensed carry.
3. Passive display of student artwork does not constitute "school sponsored activity" and the city cannot use that to ban LTC carry. This is a win. However it appears that "school-sponsored activity" can occur in the City Hall, and licensed carry can be restricted ONLY during those times (again, a temporal restriction on that prohibition).
4. Prohibition of licensed carry in City Hall during meetings that meet the requirements of GC 511 open meetings can be enforced only during the times of the meetings and only for the rooms that the meetings occur in. This is another win.

The judge did not decide:
1. Whether the "oral communications" of the security officers were violations of the "fines for signs" law. This will depend on
a. Whether the oral communications were delivered when NO court was in session and/or NO school-sponsored activity was being conducted, and
b. Whether the oral communications met the requirements of GC 411.209 (fines for signs section).

These are apparently the issues that will be hashed out at trial.

Whether an oral communication must meet certain criteria, like having to explicitly refer to 30.06, to have legal effect on a LTC holder is an interesting question!
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


locke_n_load
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 960
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#124

Post by locke_n_load » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:30 pm

This ruling has huge implications once said and done. If carrying anywhere that a field trip is taking place, you can become an automatic felon without even knowing you are breaking the law. Ridiculous. Hope this goes all the way up the chain, even since the OAG is definitely not on our side.
"They that would give up Essential Liberty, for a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

EDC - Glock 26 Gen IV
CHL Holder since 10/08

User avatar

bigtek
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:48 am

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#125

Post by bigtek » Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:48 pm

Remember that when it's time to vote.
Image


Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7814
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#126

Post by Abraham » Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:55 pm

I second bigtek...

"Remember that when it's time to vote."

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 38
Posts: 6115
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#127

Post by ELB » Sat May 26, 2018 11:39 am

This month something has happened in court in the case of KEN PAXTON V CITY OF AUSTIN D1-GN-16-003340, but I can't tell what it is so far.

The Online Case Information shows that starting at the end of March a flurry of Motions, Responses, and Letters occurred, and some kind of Order was issued on 5/21, with the Plaintiff (that's the AG) following up with three actions on 5/24, but I can't really make head or tail out of it because the documents themselves are not available, only the fact that certain types of actions and documents exist.

I dont't feel like it's good news since one of the AG's followup actions was entitled "OBJECTIONS" but I don't really know.

If it wasn't Saturday I'd call the AG's office, but guess will have to wait until next week.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


dlh
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#128

Post by dlh » Sat May 26, 2018 11:48 am

Too bad non-parties cannot access and read on-line the underlying court records. If memory serves the District and County Clerks' offices opposed open access in the last legislative session because of their anticipated loss of $$$ for charging the public for hard copies of those records.

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 38
Posts: 6115
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#129

Post by ELB » Sat May 26, 2018 12:08 pm

dlh wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 11:48 am
...District and County Clerks' offices opposed open access in the last legislative session because of their anticipated loss of $$$ for charging the public for hard copies of those records.
That would not surprise me. I believe you can get them in electronic form, but you still have to pay the Travis clerks to do so.

The Texas Municipal League often posts copies of court orders/decisions on their site, will keep an eye out for that.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”