TexasCHLforum.com

This judge sounds every bit as ridiculous as the group which shall not be named that is trying to push the issue from the other side.

I love this quote in particular

But until the county receives some clarification from the state on where in courthouses licensed carriers may bring guns, Bolls said, the signs posted outside the courthouse will remain.

If he doesn't know what can be legally restricted, then nothing should be restricted. Defaulting to a position of "restrict everything until someone tells me otherwise" is childish and immature, IMHO.

And this from a man (term used loosely) that we entrust with making legal decisions on a daily basis?

"But until the county receives some clarification from the state on where in courthouses licensed carriers may bring guns, Bolls said, the signs posted outside the courthouse will remain." I guess all the attorneys in the building are having trouble understanding the law.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. They haven't been contacted or notified by Paxton's office for whatever reason. Sounds like they are going to fight it regardless. They may get to be the first test case if they stick to their guns...(or lack there of )

Pariah3j wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays out. They haven't been contacted or notified by Paxton's office for whatever reason. Sounds like they are going to fight it regardless. They may get to be the first test case if they stick to their guns...(or lack there of )

The other way this could get forced to resolution would be if someone was given the $200 ticket for OC'ing past the signs and decided to fight it on the grounds that the sign was illegal, and therefore unenforceable. They should of course stay to the common, non-court specific areas of the building.

I'm not volunteering, but I might be willing to contribute money to a legal defense fund if someone else does so.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:The other way this could get forced to resolution would be if someone was given the $200 ticket for OC'ing past the signs

Unless they're actually prosecuted under Chapter 46...

Rpenn57 wrote:"But until the county receives some clarification from the state on where in courthouses licensed carriers may bring guns, Bolls said, the signs posted outside the courthouse will remain." I guess all the attorneys in the building are having trouble understanding the law.

What is really incredible about the county's statement about clarificaiton is that the AG has already issued an opinion spelling out where within a multi-purpose courthouse, firearms may be prohibited.

Feigning confusion about the law and the opinions is useful political posturing when you don't want to do what the law says and you aren't personally on the hook for the consequences.

I don't think there's much to "test" here, not as long as there is a process to report the allegedly illegal signs/actions. The deputies will not let you enter, and if they think you are obstreperous, will either firmly show you out or cart you off. Regardless of the outcome of your case, no judge is going to gainsay them for it, not as long as there are multiple counties contesting the AG's opinion and no court cases settled.

You might eventually win your case, depending on what if anything the local prosecutor decides to charge you with, but so what? The real precedence for this is being played out already through the SB273 law.

Let Holcomb's complaint work its way through the system.

mreed911 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:The other way this could get forced to resolution would be if someone was given the $200 ticket for OC'ing past the signs

Unless they're actually prosecuted under Chapter 46...

That would only change the $200, though, right? It wouldn't change the fact that the illegal signs are unenforceable.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays out. They haven't been contacted or notified by Paxton's office for whatever reason. Sounds like they are going to fight it regardless. They may get to be the first test case if they stick to their guns...(or lack there of )

The other way this could get forced to resolution would be if someone was given the $200 ticket

You do not get a ticket for carrying in court, you get a felony arrest. 46.03.

Solaris wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays out. They haven't been contacted or notified by Paxton's office for whatever reason. Sounds like they are going to fight it regardless. They may get to be the first test case if they stick to their guns...(or lack there of )

The other way this could get forced to resolution would be if someone was given the $200 ticket

You do not get a ticket for carrying in court, you get a felony arrest.

Except if you're NOT carrying in a court with the AG's opinion to help your lawyer make the case.

ScottDLS wrote:

Solaris wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays out. They haven't been contacted or notified by Paxton's office for whatever reason. Sounds like they are going to fight it regardless. They may get to be the first test case if they stick to their guns...(or lack there of )

The other way this could get forced to resolution would be if someone was given the $200 ticket

You do not get a ticket for carrying in court, you get a felony arrest.

Except if you're NOT carrying in a court with the AG's opinion to help your lawyer make the case.

I don't like being the guinea pig.

ScottDLS wrote:

Solaris wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays out. They haven't been contacted or notified by Paxton's office for whatever reason. Sounds like they are going to fight it regardless. They may get to be the first test case if they stick to their guns...(or lack there of )

The other way this could get forced to resolution would be if someone was given the $200 ticket

You do not get a ticket for carrying in court, you get a felony arrest.

Except if you're NOT carrying in a court with the AG's opinion to help your lawyer make the case.

AG has not ruled in this instance as per the article.

Bolls said the county was aware of the developments but had not heard from the attorney general regarding signs at the Taylor County Courthouse. "We have been following the issue," he said.