30.06 Ruling Letters

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

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

#211

Post by C-dub »

This is just insane. Life will not stop, but apparently justice and the law can be or at least put on hold. OMG!
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
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

#212

Post by ELB »

LDP wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 4:54 pm Again, my personal opinion is that someone dropped the ball and failed to perform his duty as AG.
The rulings need to be made and heard, justice needs to be served and the guilty (New California in the heart of our great state) need to be let go and not punished because the tax payers will pay the multi-million fees for the whim of our liberal leaders who know they are above the law.

Ugh, Paxton needs to wake up and not be such a sissy that he is. He needs to do the job we pay him to do. Our state suffers from his laziness.
Exactly, specifically, what should he have done differently in this case?
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

#213

Post by ELB »

Annnnnnddd...still nothing. The last brief was filed in this case one year ago. Since then the only changes have been motions to swap out attorneys as those originally assigned to the case go elsewhere.

AFAIK the scheduling of this case is entirely up to the appellate court. I'm sure it is not among the most momentous cases facing the appeals level, but yumpin yiminy. The Legislature of course has a chance to fix the basic problem, and I think in one of Springer's bills he he proposes forbidding any government entity from banning licensed carry at all. I would hate to see City of Austin dodge their. $1.5M or greater (by now) fine just because of mootness.
USAF 1982-2005
____________

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4023
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#214

Post by chasfm11 »

ELB wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:28 pm I would hate to see City of Austin dodge their. $1.5M or greater (by now) fine just because of mootness.
:iagree: The underlying problem with the errant behavior is that the politicians know that if they age it enough, they can escape all consequences of it. It is the lack of consequences that allows it to happen in the first place. There is never a "message" sent. This would be an excellent vehicle to fix that. The good people of Austin need to understand the excesses of their government just like I do if I exceed the speed limit and get caught.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 26448
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#215

Post by The Annoyed Man »

chasfm11 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:49 am
ELB wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:28 pm I would hate to see City of Austin dodge their. $1.5M or greater (by now) fine just because of mootness.
:iagree: The underlying problem with the errant behavior is that the politicians know that if they age it enough, they can escape all consequences of it. It is the lack of consequences that allows it to happen in the first place. There is never a "message" sent. This would be an excellent vehicle to fix that. The good people of Austin need to understand the excesses of their government just like I do if I exceed the speed limit and get caught.
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." —Suzanna Hupp

Please note: she singled out no particular party. A politician's words mean nothing if they are not backed by action. And action is what’s called "doing your daggum JOB". I don’t particularly care about party. If someone runs as a Republican, and says all the right pretty words, but fails to faithfully execute the actions for which they were elected, then that politician must be fired and replaced. It’s just that simple.
Definition of politician
1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government
especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
2a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession
b often disparaging : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons
Politicians themselves, regardless of stripe, are responsible for the word being increasingly used in a disparaging manner. The failure to sustain action on a very important issue is a prime example of why this is so.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
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

#216

Post by ELB »

WHOA! MOVEMENT!

And I missed it last week.

The AG had asked the appellate court for oral argument back in December 2019. The City of Austin did not request oral argument. The court finally ruled on this, denying oral argument on 10 May 21. Instead they set a deadline of Tuesday 01 Jun 21 for submission of briefs. The appeal will be reviewed by Justices Melissa Goodwin, Chari Kelly, and Edward Smith. I know nothing of them, and I don't know how fast they will actually take up the submissions and act on them.

In lesser news, the City of Austin switched out their lead attorney on the case because the previous one is no longer employed by the city. The new lead attorney for Austin is Hannah Vahl. The lead attorney for the State is Judd Stone.

I had been wondering if the appeals court was letting this case lay in limbo until they could see if the Legislature was going to do anything about it. Since it appears the Leg will not, I guess the court will now take up the matter.
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

#217

Post by ELB »

Justice Chari Kelly is a Democrat

Justice Melissa Goodwin is a Republican

Justice Edward Smith is a Democrat

Official bios can be found here: https://www.txcourts.gov/3rdcoa/about-the-court.aspx
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

#218

Post by ELB »

The Case Detail shows "submitted" for the date 6/1/21, but doesn't say who submitted what. Presumably it's one or more written briefs for the panel to consider. I'm guessing it's from the AG's office, since the AG is the one that appealed the trial court decisions and also wanted oral arguments (which was denied).
USAF 1982-2005
____________

dlh
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#219

Post by dlh »

Well, we finally received a ruling today. Was disappointed the court did not go along with the larger requested AG fines as a deterrent to other
cities refusing to follow the law:

https://search.txcourts.gov/Docket.aspx ... 07/22/2021
Please know and follow the rules of firearms safety.

clarionite
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 838
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:09 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#220

Post by clarionite »

The penalties are way too lax with this law. And this ruling made them even weaker. This law needs to be rewritten, giving it some real teeth.
User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7011
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#221

Post by puma guy »

clarionite wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:01 am The penalties are way too lax with this law. And this ruling made them even weaker. This law needs to be rewritten, giving it some real teeth.
:iagree: The judges used wishy washy arguments about the gun buster signs not being communication, but prior to 30.06 sign requirements you can bet your sweet bippie those same judges would have slapped anyone who violated a gun buster sign. Austin played cute with their directive to personnel to prevent entry by a licensed carrier and should have been punished beyond the few days cited by the court. The law needs to address antics such as those with even stiffer fines IMHO.
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!
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

#222

Post by ELB »

Sigh.
USAF 1982-2005
____________

Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#223

Post by Papa_Tiger »

dlh wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:15 am Well, we finally received a ruling today. Was disappointed the court did not go along with the larger requested AG fines as a deterrent to other
cities refusing to follow the law:

https://search.txcourts.gov/Docket.aspx ... 07/22/2021
LTC holders now have case law supporting the argument about the non-applicability of non-compliant 30.06/7 signs.

The court's decision on the "Plea to the Jurisdiction on the Etching Claim" makes it VERY clear that it would have to have the exact wording and punctuation proscribed by the statute to be effective notification. They err in stating that it would have to be either English or Spanish as that is not what the law states for a posted sign.
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

#224

Post by Flightmare »

Papa_Tiger wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:44 am
dlh wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:15 am Well, we finally received a ruling today. Was disappointed the court did not go along with the larger requested AG fines as a deterrent to other
cities refusing to follow the law:

https://search.txcourts.gov/Docket.aspx ... 07/22/2021
LTC holders now have case law supporting the argument about the non-applicability of non-compliant 30.06/7 signs.

The court's decision on the "Plea to the Jurisdiction on the Etching Claim" makes it VERY clear that it would have to have the exact wording and punctuation proscribed by the statute to be effective notification. They err in stating that it would have to be either English or Spanish as that is not what the law states for a posted sign.
I agree with this. While part of me would have preferred the higher penalty amount, the lower penalty is because the court does not recognize the gun buster sign as effective notice to license holders. On the whole, I consider this a win.
Deplorable lunatic since 2016
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”