The thing is 30.05 doesn't apply at all of the reason for your exclusion is the gun,
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
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
<>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.
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?
<>
“cops out of NFL games”
What ever happened with that ?
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.
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.
<>"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.
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).Not sure what happened in Houston, but in DFW Arlington PD refused to provide officers for security or traffic control. NFL immediately relented.
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.<>
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.
<>
Exactly, she has zero experience with constitutional law.Because the judge had no fucking idea what the law was, she was just ruling based on her personal opinion.
This needs to be mentioned to all the lege members who signed that letter to SFOT urging them turn course and allow carry this year. Get the ball rolling on a possible fix to that oversight this year while it’s still fresh on their minds and they have a real world example of it playing out."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”.