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: 83
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#166

Post by ELB »

Along the way it has been mentioned in court documents that the citizen who originally filed a complaint about licensed carry being banned was Michael Cargill. Since I seldom pay attention to Austin except when the Legislature is in session or something really really goofy happens, I was unaware the Mr. Cargill has been thorn in the side of Austin city government for quite some time now. I'm sure the city government would oppose licensed carry and guns in general without Mr. Cargill's involvement, but I'll bet his involvement put some extra hot sauce on the issue for them.
USAF 1982-2005
____________

Topic author
dhoobler
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:58 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#167

Post by dhoobler »

Revolver - An elegant weapon... for a more civilized age.
NRA Endowment Life Member
TSRA Life Member

RicoTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:35 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#168

Post by RicoTX »

I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
NRA Endowment Life Member
TSRA Member
GOA Member
User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 3042
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#169

Post by Flightmare »

RicoTX wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The judge ruled that there was only evidence of violations during 6 days.
Deplorable lunatic since 2016

jordanmills
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:42 am

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#170

Post by jordanmills »

So is this enough to go ham on all the other blatant violations that other cities/counties make?
User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13342
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#171

Post by C-dub »

Flightmare wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:25 am
RicoTX wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The judge ruled that there was only evidence of violations during 6 days.
This sounds like a weak judge to me doing everything he or she can to lessen the penalty on the city and are only ruling against them because they can’t find a way around the law. I wonder if they really expected someone to try and gain entry every day they were open and document that.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider

Boxerrider
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Central Texas

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#172

Post by Boxerrider »

C-dub wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:24 am
Flightmare wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:25 am
RicoTX wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The judge ruled that there was only evidence of violations during 6 days.
This sounds like a weak judge to me doing everything he or she can to lessen the penalty on the city and are only ruling against them because they can’t find a way around the law. I wonder if they really expected someone to try and gain entry every day they were open and document that.
I bet there will be people trying to carry there today!
While I would have liked to seen the city of Austin hammered, I can see this as a step in the right direction. Now let's see some action on those complaints that have been sitting on deck.

NotRPB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 8:24 am

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#173

Post by NotRPB »

TV news showed Central Texas Gun Works owner Michael Cargill carrying through the metal detector there yesterday :thumbs2: :thumbs2: :tiphat:
https://www.kxan.com/video/district-cou ... 1708581635



Judge Fines Austin $9,000 For Banning Guns At City Hall
http://www.kut.org/post/judge-fines-aus ... -city-hall
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 83
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#174

Post by ELB »

NotRPB wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:00 am TV news showed Central Texas Gun Works owner Michael Cargill carrying through the metal detector there yesterday :thumbs2: :thumbs2: :tiphat:
https://www.kxan.com/video/district-cou ... 1708581635



Judge Fines Austin $9,000 For Banning Guns At City Hall
http://www.kut.org/post/judge-fines-aus ... -city-hall
Dang you! I've been watching for this everyday, and you scooped me. :nono:
USAF 1982-2005
____________
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 83
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#175

Post by ELB »

Interesting ruling.

Recall the previously the judge ruled that even if there is a courtroom in the City Hall, licensed carry can NOT be prohibited if the court is not in session. I would not have gotten that from the parts of the law I have read, but it cuts against the impression that she is trying to be anti-carry. If followed state-wide, this ruling seems to actually opens up courthouses that consist solely of court rooms and court offices when court is not in session.

Her ruling that Austin can be fined only on the days when there's evidence that a licensed carrier attempted to enter and was illegally denied entrance is also not something I would have gotten from the law, but it parallels her ruling that entry can be prohibited only when court is in session. It makes me wonder if there is another legal principle at play here.

It appears if you want to really zing your local government for banning carry in a multi-use building, make sure you organize a posse to attempt entry at least once each day, and document the dickens out of it for use in court later.
USAF 1982-2005
____________

seph
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:01 am

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#176

Post by seph »

ELB wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:41 am Interesting ruling.

Recall the previously the judge ruled that even if there is a courtroom in the City Hall, licensed carry can NOT be prohibited if the court is not in session. I would not have gotten that from the parts of the law I have read, but it cuts against the impression that she is trying to be anti-carry. If followed state-wide, this ruling seems to actually opens up courthouses that consist solely of court rooms and court offices when court is not in session.

Her ruling that Austin can be fined only on the days when there's evidence that a licensed carrier attempted to enter and was illegally denied entrance is also not something I would have gotten from the law, but it parallels her ruling that entry can be prohibited only when court is in session. It makes me wonder if there is another legal principle at play here.

It appears if you want to really zing your local government for banning carry in a multi-use building, make sure you organize a posse to attempt entry at least once each day, and document the dickens out of it for use in court later.
Remember that the City Of Austin removed the signs early in this process. They switched to verbally notifing CHL holders that they cannot enter while armed. So, the fine would not be based on the number of days that the signs were posted, but instead on days it could be proven that CHL holders were not allowed entry while armed.
Let's go Brandon! "rlol"
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 17776
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#177

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

RicoTX wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The maximum fine for the first offense is $1,500 per day per sign. All subsequent fines are either $10,000 or $10,500 per day per fine.

Chas.
User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 5350
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#178

Post by Jusme »

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:35 pm
RicoTX wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:09 am I think this is good news.
However, why are the fines so low?
Why threaten with huge fines if the State is not going to use them?
The maximum fine for the first offense is $1,500 per day per sign. All subsequent fines are either $10,000 or $10,500 per day per fine.

Chas.


Charles, I'll admit, my work schedule has prevented me from keeping as close a watch on proposed bill for this session, but could you tell me if there are any plans, in this session, to address, a more streamlined, enforcement of this law? Or possibly, a better clarification, for exactly when, where, and how government agencies, can prohibit carry? These cases, take too long to be resolved, and, are too easily circumvented, by officials who don't want the State to dictate what they can do. I have written my reps, and Governor Abbot, but have gotten no definitive answers.
Thanks.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:
User avatar

Grumpy1993
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#179

Post by Grumpy1993 »

Imagine if a city posted a sign prohibiting Muslims or LBGT and got hit with a fine of less than $10,000 at the end of a lengthy court battle. Would the legislature say "the system works" or would they make it a priority to protect civil rights, perhaps by holding individuals personally liable for violating civil rights under color of law?
Bonnen Lied
Gun Rights Died
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 83
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#180

Post by ELB »

I'm seeing news stories that Austin was fined $9000 for "violating Texas open carry laws." :confused5 :confused5

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/guns/20 ... udge-rules
A Travis County judge ruled Thursday that the city of Austin violated open-carry laws when it stopped a licensed resident from carrying firearms at City Hall.
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/17 ... dge-rules/
"At issue is whether certain government agencies are exempt from the state's open carry law, passed in 2015, which allows Texans with a license to openly tote their handguns in a hip or shoulder holster."
ETA:
https://freebeacon.com/issues/city-of-a ... urt-rules/
The City of Austin violated the state's open carry law on six occasions, the court indicated, and ordered the city to pay a fine of $1,500 for each violation.
I guess they copy off of each other.
Last edited by ELB on Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”