No More LTC Allowed At Texas State Fair

[Eastexasrick]

I can not find anything on the details of the pleading, here is the ruling, but it does not say shit.
Cause 15-24-00103-CV

 

[Renegade]

The thing is 30.05 doesn't apply at all of the reason for your exclusion is the gun,

3rd and last time.

Guns have FUCKING nothing to do with it. They are on property protesting and property owner does not want protests on his property.

Go protest with alternative and see how it works in real life if you still do not understand this.

 

[General Zod]

I can not find anything on the details of the pleading, here is the ruling, but it does not say shit.
Cause 15-24-00103-CV

Because the judge had no fucking idea what the law was, she was just ruling based on her personal opinion.

 

[Renegade]

I can not find anything on the details of the pleading, here is the ruling, but it does not say shit.
Cause 15-24-00103-CV

Before Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris.

All 3 appointed by Abbott in June. Took office Sept 1. Not up for election till 2026.

Original court gave no reason either

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/archive/2024/54923.pdf

 

[Eastexasrick]

Got it. see attached. You click on the motion and get the filing

Case Detail

search.txcourts.gov

 

[Eastexasrick]

In all of that legal BS there is nothing on why it was denied, just what was filed and by whom. This was a motion for emergency relief, there will still be a trial on merits at some point, to address this whole mess. Unless Ken withdraws or vacates the complaint.

 

[ScottDLS]

Am I correct in assuming what has been argued and appealed so far is the request for an injunction? Will AG Paxton try to fine the City of Dallas in accordance with the law and a trial be held on that?

EDIT: Well I read the pleading and that is what is happening.

 

[leVieux]

Appeals Court ruled with State Fair and lower court.

Texas Supreme Court is all that is left. Hope he appeals to them so I can properly vote in November.

Does anyone know the actual issue the Fair is arguing? The media is not very good at reporting.

I see 2 possible issues:

1) 30.06/7 does not apply to us.

2) 30.06/7 does apply to us, we are just not going to let anyone in with a gun. This is strategy NFL tried to keep cops out of NFL games.

<>

“cops out of NFL games”

What ever happened with that ?

Our Son was told he couldn’t enter the Superdome armed. He has full State & Federal Police credentials.

The real problem with that is that he had to walk through one of the most crime-ridden neighborhoods to get there, unarmed.

That is where I had to park when on the LSU Med Faculty & I never went near unarmed; a 9mm days & a .45ACP nights.

Last I heard the Sheriff hade told them he & a Chief Deputy were going to a game armed and they had better not try to disarm him.

Then the Landrieu Crime Syndicate had the very good Sheriff Gusman dis-elected; so who knows?

For Texans’ info, the Landrieu’s are worse than a Lloyd Doggett / Ann Richards combo.

Please tell me if the issue was resolved, and how ?

leVieux

<>

 

[roadkill]

https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=6f07e5df-6b92-4496-a85b-01f65e1befd5&coa=coa15&DT=Response&MediaID=5e28ea5e-8947-4b81-99c7-5b48857ad191

SFOT is arguing this is a property rights case not a gun rights case. Will be interesting if the state actually brings up that they cannot convey a right that they do not have. Seems that right there stops any defense that the SFOT thinks they have.

 

[Younggun]

A crazy thought, a bunch of 2A people go to the gate open carrying with protest signs, refuse to leave, get arrested and sue for false arrest. Have to have a lot of chutzpah to do that but certainly make a stink and might make some money (or lose a lot) for false arrest lawsuit. Isn't that what CJ Grisham did?

Those protests did far more harm than good for Open Carry. The vast majority of the populace looked on them with disdain, which made it risky for politicians to back it.

 

[Renegade]

<>

“cops out of NFL games”

What ever happened with that ?

Not sure what happened in Houston, but in DFW Arlington PD refused to provide officers for security or traffic control. NFL immediately relented.

 

[Renegade]

In all of that legal BS there is nothing on why it was denied, just what was filed and by whom. This was a motion for emergency relief, there will still be a trial on merits at some point, to address this whole mess. Unless Ken withdraws or vacates the complaint.

All I can read into it was they did not think it warranted immediate relief. Nothing on merits of case.

 

[General Zod]

https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=6f07e5df-6b92-4496-a85b-01f65e1befd5&coa=coa15&DT=Response&MediaID=5e28ea5e-8947-4b81-99c7-5b48857ad191

SFOT is arguing this is a property rights case not a gun rights case. Will be interesting if the state actually brings up that they cannot convey a right that they do not have. Seems that right there stops any defense that the SFOT thinks they have.

Interesting that they'd argue that considering it's not their property...and property owned by local government can't have carry restrictions on it.

 

[Renegade]

"The State cannot come close to establishing a violation of section 411.209."

So SFOT is clearly saying they will not be enforcing 30.06/07 on anybody as law requires since it is .gov property. They are just not going to let you in.

This takes us back to my earlier comment on this poorly worded law by Charles Cotton that they have found a loophole for.

Ironically I got banned by Cotton from his forum for pointing this out, yet here we are.

 

[leVieux]

"The State cannot come close to establishing a violation of section 411.209."

So SFOT is clearly saying they will not be enforcing 30.06/07 on anybody as law requires since it is .gov property. They are just not going to let you in.

This takes us back to my earlier comment on this poorly worded law by Charles Cotton that they have found a loophole for.

Ironically I got banned by Cotton from his forum for pointing this out, yet here we are.

<>

IANAL, but our modern society has this recurring issue of “property rights” vs) individual rights. IOW, a “conflict of rights”.

But there should be two different standards; one for strictly private property on which the property rights prevail, as for private homes, farms, ranches, etc.

We need different criteria for private property onto which the public has been invited, solicited, or has some unusual tradition; so that property owners who violate individual rights are held responsible for people’s safety.

This keeps coming up here.

<>

 

[ScottDLS]

Not sure what happened in Houston, but in DFW Arlington PD refused to provide officers for security or traffic control. NFL immediately relented.

It is now written into Texas law that publicly owned stadium operators cannot exclude on or off duty Peace Officers and Federal Agents from events with a $1000 civil penalty for violation. At Cowboys Stadium they have a specific entry for them. NFL can't do anything about it (in Texas).

 

[ScottDLS]

<>

IANAL, but our modern society has this recurring issue of “property rights” vs) individual rights. IOW, a “conflict of rights”.

But there should be two different standards; one for strictly private property on which the property rights prevail, as for private homes, farms, ranches, etc.

We need different criteria for private property onto which the public has been invited, solicited, or has some unusual tradition; so that property owners who violate individual rights are held responsible for people’s safety.

This keeps coming up here.

<>

It's simpler than that. The state can simply take themselves out of the enforcement of 'rules of conduct' on private property through criminal trespass. You can put up a sign saying 'no guns' or 'no pink undershorts' but if someone walks past it concealed carrying or wearing pink boxers and you find out about it after they leave, the state isn't going to do anything about it. That's not what trespass law is for anyway. And effectively that's the way it works now anyway. For public property, the operator of the property should not be able to physically prevent you from carrying. They already can't trespass you, but the State needs to enforce the rules against exclusion of LTC on public property leased to private operators. But they don't.

 

[DoubleDuty]

Because the judge had no fucking idea what the law was, she was just ruling based on her personal opinion.

Exactly, she has zero experience with constitutional law.